AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF FARM 

LAYOUT 



A THESIS 



PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



BY 

WILLIAM IRVING MYERS 



Reprinted from Memoir 34, Jur>e, 1920 



AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF FARM 

LAYOUT 



A THESIS 



PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



BY 
WILLIAM IRVING MYERS 



Reprinted from Memoir 34, June, 1920 



^9^^ 






i I'^n/M'lv Of 






^^'^R<«6I92| 



UO^i 1 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Location and description of farms studied 389 

Methods of investigation 391 

How farm layouts have developed 395 

Farm layout 410 

Size of fields 410 

Effect of size of fields on labor 410 

Effect of size of fields on economy of fencing and of land 414 

Conclusions on effect of size of fields 415 

Shape of fields 424 

Effect of shape of fields on labor 424 

Effect of shape of fields on economy of fencing and of land 428 

Conclusions on effect of shape of fields 428 

Location of fields with respect to buildings 434 

Obstructions in fields 452 

Swampy spots 452 

Open ditches and streams 452 

Stone piles 458 

Trees 459 

Fences 459 

Relation of type of farming to fencing practice 461 

Western New York 461 

Southern New York 462 

Southeastern New York 463 

Central New York 464 

Distribution of fence on farms 464 

Economy of fencing 466 

Land occupied by fences 467 

Proportion of farm area in fenced fields 472 

Relative advantages and disadvantages of fenced and uufenced crop fields .... 473 

Gates 476 

Cost of fence maintenance 476 

Farm lanes and driveways 479 

Utility of lanes 479 

Width of lanes 483 

Crop land 487 

Pasture land 489 

Woodland 493 

Public highways 500 

The farmstead 504 

Tenant houses 510 

Relation of farm layout to other factors 513 

How to plan a farm rearrangement and follow out the plan 514 

Actual rearrangements of some New York farms as made by owners 515 

Rearrangement of two central New York farms 516 

The first farm 516 

The second farm 529 

Rearrangement of a northern New York farm 52") 

Rearrangement of a western New York farm 528 

385 



366 W. I. Myers 

PAGE 

Possible rearrangements of some New York farms r).']!) 

PossiVile rearrangement of two central New York farms f)'M\ 

The first farm FylV) 

The second farm o-l'J 

Possible rearrangement of a western New York farm r)40 

Land utilization 551 

Summary 501 



AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF FARM LAYOUT 



AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF FARM LAYOUT 
W. I. Myers 

The investigation reported in this memoir had two objects. The first 
was to study the principles of farm layout, and determine their relative 
importance as an aid to individuals in rearranging their farms to secure 
tlie most efficient use of labor and land; the second was to study the 
utilization of land on the typical farms considered, as a public problem 
of land utilization, with particular reference to the possibilities of increasing 
the area of crop land to meet the needs of an increasing population. 

Labor efficiency has always been the keynote of American agriculture. 
American farmers have wasted land but they have produced more product 
to the worker than any other farmers in the world. They have economized 
in labor, which was scarce, and wasted land, which was plentiful. The 
good free lands in North America are now practically exhausted and the 
pinch of land scarcity is beginning to be felt. 

The future problem of American farmers is more difficult. It involves 
a better utilization of land, a greater intensity of cultivation, and, at 
1he same time, the maintenance of a high productivity per worker. The 
lust requirement is perhaps the most important, for, unless a high pro- 
ductivity per worker is maintained, the agricultural class will become a 
peasant class similar to that of European countries. Farm layout offers 
one means of saving land and labor. A properly planned farm layout 
should make the most advantageous utilization of the land, and at the 
same time secure the greatest efficiency of labor. 

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF FARMS STUDIED 

For several years the Department of Farm Management of the New 
York State College of Agriculture has been conducting cost-accounting 
investigations on New York farms, in cooperation with the Office of 
Farm Management of the United States Department of Agriculture. 

Author's acknowledgments. These studies were made under the dirertion of Professors G. F Warren 
and K. C. Livermore, of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Alanagement at Cornell 
University. Messrs. L. E. Harvey and C. V. Nloble assisted in mapping the farms. Surveyitig instru- 
ments were furnished by the Department of Rural Engineering. The farm maps were traced and lettered 
by Miss C. L. Garrett, Professor J. E. Reyna, and Professor J. L. Strahan. To these and to all others 
who have cooperated in the work, the writer is indebted. 

389 



X 



390 



W. I. Myers 



Since 1915 annual maps of the farms on which cost accounts were bcins 
lvei)t have liecn made by the writer, primarily to increase the value and 
accuracy of the accounts. Blue jirints of the farm maps were returned to 
each farmer for his own use. The data for the following studies of fai-m 
layout wei-e obtained from these maps, supi)lemented by information 
furnished by the farmers and in some cases by data from the cost accounts. 




Fig. 07. location of farms studied 



The location of tlie fifty-three farms considered in these studies is 
shown in figure 67. Most of these farms are larger than the average 
farm, their average area being 173.4 acres as compared with an average 
of 103.2 acres for the farms reported in the state census of agriculture 
for 1918. Altho larger, better organized, better managed, and more 
profitable than the average farm, they are all real farms, on which the 
operator is a laborer. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 391 

Most of the important types of farming in New York State are repre- 
sented among the fai-ms studied. Twenty-four of the farms are located 
in western New York. These farms are devoted largely to fruit and 
general farm crops. Some fruit is grown for sale on nearly all of them, 
wliile ten are intensive fruit farms. Two of the farms in this region 
produce truck crops for the Buffalo market. Little stock is kept in this 
region, only two farms having more than six cows. Eleven farms are 
located in southern New York. Dairying is here the principal enterprise 
and few crops are grown for sale. Two of the farms in this region raise 
some truck crops for local markets, and two farms grow some tobacco. 
Twelve farms are located in the general farming region of central New 
York. Dairying is an important enterprise on these farms, but con- 
siderable quantities of various crops are grown for sale. Four farms are 
located in southeastern New York. Three of these are intensive dairy 
farms, while the fourth, in the Hudson Valley, produces fruit and truck 
crops for local markets. 

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 

In mapping these farms, many different methods were tried in an 
effort to combine a reasonable degree of accuracy with speed. The first 
farms were mapped with only a 100-foot steel tape, all lines and any 
necessary angles being measured. Where farms are rectangular in outline, 
with rectangular fields, this method is the most rapid and satisfactory. 
.Where farm or fence lines are crooked it is impracticable, and, since most 
New York farms are at least partly irregular, some means must be found 
to map these irregular lines. Hand compasses and general-purpose levels 
were tried and discarded. The method that was found most satisfactory 
was to use a steel tape for measuring the boundaries and all straight lines 
in a farm, and a surveyor's transit for mapping the irregular parts. On 
most farms it was necessary to run only a short traverse with a transit, 
locating the corners of all irregular lines accessible from each station by 
the horizontal angle and the distance to each. All distances were read 
by stadia. When targets are used, this method is both rapid and 
accurate. In all cases the present farm fences were mapped, and no 
effort was made to run out the deed lines. Deed descriptions were obtained 
in some cases for checking purposes, but in many deeds the descriptions 
were inaccurate. 



392 W. I. Myers 

In addition to the measurements of the different parts of the farms, 
other data were obtained in the mapping. Every change in the Idnd of 
fence was recorded in the field notes, and from tliis record the kinds of 
fence, and tlie number of rods of each kind on every farm, were found. 
The width of the strip of land occupied by each kind of fence, with different 
crops, was measured. Where the width of the strip varied along the edge 
of a field, the average width was estimated and checked by frequent 
measurements. The area of the land in crop fields occupied by swampy 
spots, streams, open ditches, driveways, trees, stone outcrops, stone 
piles, and barns was measured, as well as the crop land untillable because 
rough, or wasted because of proximity to woods. All important buildings 
and the divisions of the farmstead were measured and located. Where 
possible, the history of the fields and the farm was learned from the owner. 
Data were obtained on the character of the pasture land. Woodlots 
were located, and notes were taken on the suital^ility of the land for other 
purposes. Orchards were classified by Idnds, and as to whether or not 
they were bearing. In short, an effort was made to get as complete 
information as possible concerning the utilization of all the land on 
these farms. 

The farm maps were drawn to a uniform scale of 200 feet to the inch. 
Except for very large and very small farms, these proportions are satis- 
factory. In addition to farm and field lines, the kinds of fence and all 
the physical features of the farm were shown on the maps. This necessi- 
tated the provisions of a set of s^^anbols which could be drawn rapidly. 
Some ideas for these symbols were obtained from the conventional signs 
adopted as rc^commended practice by the American Society of Agricultural 
Engineers. The symbols used are shown in figure 68. 

Areas of fields and other farm divisions were obtained from the maps 
Ijy the use of a i)lanimeter. After ascertaining an area in square inches 
by averaging four or five observations of the planimeter, this area was 
reduced to square feet and then to acres. The area of each crop field 
was designated by two figures, the top figure representing the gross area 
included within the l^oundaries of the field, and the lower figure the area 
actually in crops, after deducting the land occupied by fences, stone 
piles, streams, and other oljst ructions. 

The accuracy of the maps and of the areas of the different divisions 
in all cases was checked by observation by the farmers. The areas of 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 393 



LEGEND 

7e?r?/Pordfru fi^/a d/{//sion__ 

l.<3r?e 

SmooZ/y wire /^/7ce 

Sfon6' fence. 



Bsrde^ /i//re /ence 

Sfr<3J^^^ ra^/ or doan:/ /e/7ce. 



II M M K '* i > II " 



3ri/s/7, s/ump, orJiec/c^^ /^nca- 

Pr<3i?7<3c^e orc^J/c/7 roi/ere<^^ 

Ordind^e or (^//c/? uncoi/'^ere^ 
Creek or r/ver 



Marsh or Jivainpi/ J^nd 

Fruif frees bedriryt^^ 

Frujf fr^es nof ^e^rina 

lA/oods 




oooo o oooo 



Sfvne pj/e 

ddre rocAs , 

Rdz/rod<d /ine ■ i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Mai 77 /dr?r?5/(Fa£r/ 




Fig. 68. symbols used in mapping farms 

fields were roughly checked by comparison with farmers' estimates pre- 
viously made. The areas of the farms were also checked by comparison 
with the acreages as given in the deeds. The best check on the accuracy 
of the methods employed was obtained by comparing the total area of 



394 W. I. Myers 

the farm, as computed from the measured (Umensions, with the sum of 
the areas of the different farm fields taken from the map by the use of the 
planimeter. This method of checking gave the combined error in drawing 
the maps to scale and in figuring the acreages. For fourteen rectangular 
farms that were thus checked, the average variation of the sum of the areas 
of the farm fields from the computed area of the farm was one-fifth of one 
per cent, the maximum variation being less than one-half of one per cent. 
Some farms nearly rectangular in shape were checked by completing the 
rectangle, adding the additional area to the farm area, and comparing 
this total with the area of the rectangle as computed from the dimensions. 
This method, however, checks only the accuracy of the planimeter areas. 

In most cases the present farm areas, as thus determined, overran the 
deed acreages. Of thirty-eight farms for which the deeds and the measured 
areas were compared, thirty-one overran the deed acreage, the average 
overrun being 3.5 per cent. The average variation of all these thirty- 
eight farms was 3.1 per cent from the deed acreage. 

In these studies a field is considered to be all the land usually farmed 
as a unit. In comparing layouts of different farms in the following pages, 
the average size of the farmed fields and the average distance to these 
fields are usually given. In computing the average size of the fields for 
each farm, tlu^ area in field crops was dividetl by the numbei- of fields 
usually farmed, in computing the average distance to fields, the usual 
line of travel to the fiekls was measured. Both the distance to the nearest^ 
gates and the distance to the centers of crop fields were measured, but, 
since with most farm oi)erations unproductive travel ends at the gate, 
the former figure is used herein unless otherwise indicated. In all cases 
the average distance to fields for each faiiu is the weighted average distance. 

The total estimated aci-eage of 380 farm fields, as given by farmers, 
varied from their measured acreage by less than iwo-Ht'tlis of one per cent. 
Farmers ordinarily estimate areas in acres and fractions of an acre, seldom 
trying to estimate closer than a half acre, while the measured areas were 
computed to the n«irest one-hvmdredth of an acre. For this reason the 
percentage valuation f)f estimated from measured areas of single fields 
was high with small fields. With fiekls of less than two acres, the ave^^ge 
variation of individual estimates from nu^tisured areas was about nineteen 
l)er (HMit. Th(^ average variation of the estimates decreased with larger 
fields up to 20 acres. With fields from 12.1 to 20 acres in size, the average 



An Economic Study of Farm Layoui^ 395 

variation of individual estimates from measured areas was about seven 
per cent. Witli all sizes of fields the number of over-estimates was 
approximately equal to the number of under-estimates, and, as in other 
cases where judgment is unbiased, the errors were compensating. 

HOW FARM LAYOUTS HAVE DEVELOPED^ 

Practically all of the land in New York farms was originally covered 
with forests. A large part of this land was more or less stony. These 
factors made the task of clearing the land for cultivation a long and 
laborious one, and their effect can be plainly seen on the layout of farms 
today. 

The first task of the settler was to provide a shelter for himself and 
his family. In deciding on a location for his farmstead, little or no atten- 
tion was paid to its convenience as a center for farm operations. The most 
important considerations were that the buildings should be near a supply 
of gootl water, preferably a sgring, and that they should be accessible to 
the roads then in use. 

After shelter had been provided, the next task of the settler was to 
clear the land for cultivation. The drier, warmer parts of the farm were 
usually cleared first. The shape of these clearings, and the directions 
of their boundaries, were often matters of chance. After cutting and 
l)urning the trees and brush until a patch of sufficient size had been 
cleared, the settler removed the surplus surface stones, piling or throwing 
them around the edge of the clearing. Cror)S could then be grown 
between the tree stumps until the roots rotted so that they could be pulled. 
Other patches were successively cleared in the same haphazard fasliion, 
and fences of rails, stumps, or stones, or of combinations of these materials, 
were built between them. Small, irregular fields were the natural result of 
clearing land under these conditions. In some cases the fences were 
made parallel witli the farm boundaries, but oftener they were not. These 
small, irregular fields were not a serious drawback to cultivation with the 
hand-labor methods then existing. Mowing was done with a scythe, and 
reaping with a cradle, ("{rain was sown broadcast by hand and most 
of the cukivatirig was done with a hoe. A two-acre fiekl was probably 
as large in terms of human labor as a ten-acre field is to-day. Neither 
were these small, irregular fields difficult to fence. With rail, stump, 
or stone fences, the irregularity of the fields made little difference. 



390 W. I. M^t:rs 

Another factor that has influenced the development of farm layouts 
is the size of grants of land made to the early settlers. Examination of 
the original deeds of many New York farms has shown that much of the 
farm land of New York was sold or given to settlers in small tracts of 
from 50 to 100 acres. The general plan followed in making grants to 
settlers was to give each settler enough land to maintain a family. The 
few large grants made in very early times to Dutch patroons in eastern 
New York were cut up into family farms owned by the men who tilled 
them. The ideal was the family farm, and consequently most of the farm 
land available for settlement was divided into tracts of a size deemed 
sufficient for maintaining a family. The amount of land necessary for 
this purpose varies widely according to the natural productivity of the 
soil, but, since little was known of the relative productivity of the soil in 
different regions, little allowance appears to have been made for tliis factor 
in laying out farms for settlement. A large farm could not be cleared and 
worked by a single family with hand-labor methods. Furthermore, in 
these newly settled regions the settler's family did not have to rely entirely 
on the productivity of the soil for their living. Lumbering offered an 
opportunity of earning money during the winter months, and thus helped 
to maintain the family while the land was being cleared for farming. 

In laying out farms for settlement, little attention was paid to making 
them of such shape as to be conveniently worked. In eastern New York 
the original farms were often irregular in outline. In central and western 
New York most of the farms were rectangular in shape, but the 50-acre 
farms were made in some counties about 50 by 160 rods, in other counties 
33 by 240 rods. With such long, narrow farms, a large part of the land 
is remote from the buildings and much labor is v/asted in travel. 

After most of New York was settled, imjiortant changes took place in 
farming practice, due principally to the use of labor-saving machinery. 
The invention and use of the mower, the reaper, the drill, and other 
labor-saving tools greatly increased the effectiveness of human labor and 
consequently the area of land that could be farmed by one person. The 
small, irregular fields which had resulted partly from the accidents of clear- 
ing and partly from topography, were a serious handicap to the use of 
machinery. Stones, stone piles, and other obstructions added to the 
difficulty of working these small, irregular fields with machinery. Steep 
slopes which had been mowed easily with a scythe or a cradle could not 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



397 



be cut with a mower or a reaper. The opening-iip of the Middle West 
about this time made available large areas of level fertile soil, and farm 
land not adapted to machine cultivation could not compete successfully 
in crop production with these favored regions. Some entire farms were 
abandoned. On many farms, fields not adapted to machine production 
were changed to pasture land. 

Since the use of labor-saving machinery enabled them to work larger 
areas than the original small farms, farmers began to combine two or more 
of these small farms into larger farm units. The extension of the use of 
machinery has continued down to the present day, and an increase in 
the size of farms has followed as a natural result. The numbers of 
farms of different sizes as reported in the federal censuses since 1860 
are shown in table 1: 



TABLE 1. 



Changes in Size of Farms in New York State as Shown bt United States 
Census Reports from 1860 to 1910 



Size of farms 


Number of farms 


(acres) 


1910 


1900 


1890 


1880 


1870 


1S60 


Under 10 


18,655 

103,401 

92,194 

1,347 


16,760 

114,694 

93,909 

1,.357 


13,166 

120,569 

91,323 

1 , 165 


14,913 

128,276 

96,273 

1,.596 


13,078 

146,982 

55,948 

245 


6,763 


10-99 


139,849 


100-499 


50,1.32 


500 or over 


246 






Total number of farms 
Average size of farms 

(acres) 


215,597 
102 


226,720 
100 


226,223 
97 


241,058 
99 


216,253 
97 


196,990 
106 







Apparently the average size of New York farms as reported by the census 
has not been increasing. The numl)er of so-called " farms " of less than 
10 acres has increased greatly since 1860; the number of farms of from 
10 to 99 acres has decreased; while the number of farms of 100 acres or 
more has increased. The increase in the numbers of small " farms " 
has tended to offset the effect of the increased number of moderately 
large farms, and as a result there has been little change in the average 
size of the " census " farm. Very many of the places of less than 10 
acres are not real farms on which the operators make their living, but 



398 



W. I. Myers 



are homes for persons engaged in industry. There is no doubt that the 
average size of the general farms in New York has increased considerably 
(hiring this period. 

As a result of these changes, many present-day farms are compounds 
or complexes of original smaller farms or parts of farms. The fifty-three 
typical farms included in this study were composed of at least one himdred 
and twenty-six smaller farms or pai'ts of farms, to the knowledge of their 
present owners. The number of farms composed of one, two, three, four, 
or more parts is shown in table 2: 

TABLE 2. Composition of Present-Dat Farms 





Total 
number 

of 
farms 


Number of farms made up of 


Size of farms 
(aere.s) 


One 
part 
only 


Two 

parts 


Three 
parts 


Four 
parts 


Five 

parts 


Fifteen 
parts 


Twenty- 

tAVO 

parts 


Less than 100 

100 174.9 


13 
20 
20 
53 


S 
11 

3 
22 


2 

.5 

G 

13 


2 
2 
4 

8 


1 

5 
G 



1 

1 
2 




1 

1 



1 


175 or over 

All f.u-ar, 




1 



Three-fifths of the fifty-three farms were made up of two or more original 
farms or parts of farms. One large farm of 478 acres was made up of 
fifteen distinct farms or parts of farms ranging in size from 10 to 120 
acres. Another farm of 150 acres was made up of twenty-two parts. 

The process by which the small original farms have been combined 
into larger farm units can best be illustrated by maps showing different 
stages in tlie development of typical farms. The outlines of five farms 
in central New York as they appeared when settled between 1800 and 
1835 are shown by figure (39. Farms A, B, and C were distinct, complete 
50-acre farms settled by different men; D was a tract of 50 acres forming 
a part of a larger farm; and E was a 12-acre lot which was a jiart of a 
fifth farm. Log houses and barns were built ori farms A, B, and C on the 
locations shown. The north ends of the>>e farms were cleared first. About 
1845 the main road was put thru south of B, C, and D, and at tibout 
the same time farm C was sold by its first owner. The new owner of 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



399 





Fig. 69. development of a central new yobk fakm - 
Original plan, showing outlines of farms A, B, C, D, and E when settled 



400 W. I. Myers 

farm C never lived in the original log house at the north end of the farm, 
but changed the location of the farmstead to the extreme southeastern 
corner of this farm on the new road. He moved the original barn to 
the new farmstead and built a new house, living for a time during the 
summer in the old barn wliile the house was under construction. After 
clearing the south end of farm C, this man began the present consolidation 
by buying 25 acres of D, on the west of his farm. After clearing this 
he bought the remaining 25 acres of D. About this time the road run- 
ning north thru farm D was moved west to its present location as the 
western boundary of tliis farm, in order to avoid a steep hill, and the 
road running across the north ends of farms B and C was abandoned. 

The owner of farm CD died and the land was inhei-ited by a son who con- 
tinued the process of coml^ination begun by his father. He first bought 
farm B, on the east of the farm inherited. This made him the owner of 
three of the original 50-acre farms, B, C, and D. The 12-acre lot E 
also came under his management thru inheritance by his wife. After 
cutting the remainder of the timl^er from farm B, the owner of farms 
B, C, D, and E took advantage of a good opportunity and sold tliis 
farm. 

The location of the farmstead of farm C was in the southeastern corner 
of the farm, adjoining one of the crop fields of farm B. Because of this 
iwoximity, poultry from the farmstead of farm C did more or less damage 
to the crops in the adjoining field and caused some ill feehng between 
the neighbors. Partly to avoid this difficulty, and partly because it was 
a better field, the owner of farms B, C, D, and E retained tliis 10-acre 
field in selling fai-m B, and sold instead a larger field from the north end 
of farm C. The outline of the farms at this stage of their development 
is shown by figuie 70. 

In 1899 farms C, D, and E were purchased by the present owner. Two 
years later this farmer bought farm A, which had been an independent 
unit up to tliis time. In 1918 he bought farm B, thus bringing under 
one management land which was in five different farms eighty years 
earlier. The last two stages in the development of this farm are shown 
in figures 71 and 72. The area of the combined farms is 216 acres, a 
moderately large family farm. Probably it is no larger in terms of human 
labor than a similar farm of half the area eighty years ago. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



401 




Fig. 70. development of a central new york farm — ii 
The original farms C, D, and E have been combined, but A and B are separate farm units 



402 



W. I. Myers 




54 <3. 





jFlG. 71. DEVELOPMENT OF A CENTRAL NEW YORK FARM — HI 

In 1S99 farm CDE was purchased by the present owner and two years later farm A was added, making 
the combined farm area 162 acres 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



403 




Fig. 72. development of a central new tork farm — iv 
In 1918 farm B was purchased, thus bringing the five smalliOriginal farms into one farm of 210 acres 



404 



W. I. Myers 



This is not an isolated case. A similar process has been going on in 
all parts of the State as the development of farm machinery has increased 
the effectiveness of human labor and consequently the area of land that 
can be farmed to best advantage by one family. Other forces, however, 
are pulUng against this tendency to increase the size of farms. Every farm 
changes hands at least once in a generation. Tenants and other persons 
of small means often wish to buy small farms at first, because of lack 
of capital, with the expectation of buying more land later if successful. 
There is also a constant tendency to divide farms among the heirs when 







Fig. 73. plan of a western new york farm in 1906 

The area of the farm at this time was 110 acres, 35 acres having already been added to the original 

75-acre farm 



farms change hands l)y inlioritance. Tlio result of these conflicting forces 
is a slow increase in the average size of farms. 

The jilan of a western New York farm in 1906 is shown in figure 73. 
The area of the farm was then about 110 acres, 35 acres having been 
added to the original farm of 75 acres l^efore that time. In this vicinity 
much of the land was surveyed into rectangular farms of from 50 to 100 
acres, three-(|uaiteis of a mile long. Sucli long, narrow farms were never 
aciapted to economical operation. Laiul at the end of one farm, three- 
quarters of a mile from the buildings and too remote for economical 
operation, is usually dire(;tly across the road from the farmstead of another 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



405 



farm which in turn has fields three-quarters of a mile away. This mistake 
in laying out farms has cost New York farmers many thousands of dollars 
in lost time traveling to and from remote fields. 

In 1907 an adjoining farm of 05 acres was added to the farm just 
mentioned. The plan of this lai-ger farm of 175 acres is shown in figure 74. 
No further change was made in the size of this farm until 1917, when 
the 100-acre farm across the road was rented and added to the 175 acres 




Fig. 74. plan of the same farm in 1907 

The area of the farm at this time was 175.8 acres, the adjoining farm of 05 acres having been acquired 

by purchase 



already owned. The plan of the combined farms is shown in figure 75. 
It is probable that the smaller farm will be purchased within a few years 
and made a permanent part of the larger farm, since it would be more 
valuable as a part of this farm than as an independent unit. In this 
region a farm of 100 acres is too small for economic operation, because 
a large part of the land is so rough or so wet as to be adapted only for 
pasture. The area of crop land in this 100-acre farm, 37 acres, is too 
small to allow of efficient use of labor and machinery with general farm 
crops when fanned independently, and the land is not adapted to intensive 



40G 



W. I. Myers 




An Economic Sti'dv of Farm Layout 407 

cropping. In this case the small farm makes a valuable adjunct to the 
Lirger farm. The pastiu'e is needed in pastvu'ing the large herd of cows 
kept on the larger farm. The barn is convenient for keeping young 
s^ock thru the winter, and the house is well located for the houK^ of a 
hired man. The crop land is convenient to the farmstead of the larger 
farm. The present farm of 275 acres is not too large for a family farm 
in this region. It is smaller in terms of human labor than the 21G-aci-{^ 
farm whose history is given in the preceding pages. 



i 



I 

i' 
1 



■ c- jo,^ - ^/a^ ^j rc/s 



A-^0a-e.'0./5rz/s' ' ',?>»»»i,'^l»J:*»;»?>. 






Fig. 76. plan of a western new york fritit farm in 1917 showing the original 
fakms that have been combined into one farm business 

The very long, narrow farms found in this region are inconvenient to work and result in much wasted 

labor 

In this process of combining hirms to keep pace with changing con- 
ditions, it has not alwa3\s been possible to procure land adjacent to the 
farm already owned. The plans of four farms in western New Yoi'k 
which have been combined into one farm business are shown in figure 76. 
In tliis region the farm land was first survej^ed into areas of 160 acres, 
and these were later cut up into small farms of from 20 to 50 acres. 
Because of the value of frontage on the main highway along which these 
farms are located, the small farms were made very long and narrow. 
Farm A was an extreme example of this arrangement, being more than 
200 rods long and only 15 rods wide. Such a layout is economical of 



408 W. I. Myers 

road frontage but extremely wasteful of labor, land, and fencing. The 
long distance which must be traveled to the remote fields of even a 20- 
acre farm is readily apparent. Furthermore, with the type of fence used 
on many of these farms this arrangement is very wasteful of land. The 
present owner of these farms bought the two farms A and B in 1888. 
At this time large osage-orange hedges formed the eastern boundary of 
farm A, and also the line between farms A and C. These hedges wasted 
more than a rod of land on each side. In adtlition a driveway was neces- 
sary to give access to the back fields. The two hedgerows and the drive- 
way made untillable al)out one-sixth of the area of farm A as far back as 
they extended. In 1904 farm C was added to farms A and B, making the 
farm area 76 acres. Having control of farms A and C-, tliis farmer pulled 
out the hedge between them, thereljy gaining about an acre and a quarter 
of land as well as eliminating one driveway. In 1916 farm D, of 20 acres, 
was added, bringing the farm up to the size here shown. Further addi- 
tions have since l)een made. 

This farm is located in one of the most prosperous agricultui-al regions 
of the State. The land is largely devoted to fruit and other intensive 
crops. The acces8il)ility of the fields from the farmstead is far more 
ini]:)ortant under tliesc conditions than where only extensive croi)s are 
grown. Altho nuich smaller in area, tliis farm is larger in terms of human 
lal)or than the 27r)-acre farm discussed just previously. 

A farm representing an extreme case, in wliich twenty-two jjarcels of 
land have been coml)ined to form one farm of 150 acres, is shown in 
figure 77. Some of these parcels were town lots of the decadent village 
in which the farm is located. The scattered, patchwork ai:)pearance of 
tliis farm shows the difficulties that have been encountered in trying to 
procure enough land to make a farm of reasonable size. 

The foregoing examples are intended to give typical illustrations of the 
combination of farms in response to changing methods of production. 
Not all farms art^ composed of as many parts as the examples given. 
These farms are larger today than the average farm, and hence they would 
bo expected to l)e made up of more parts. 

As larger and more improved macliines come into use, the problem of 
reari'anging farms to permit the economical use of machinery becomes 
more important. Every new, improved farm machine is a new argument 
for a better farm layout. The newest farm machine, the tractor, is no 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



409 



exception to this rule. One of the striking facts brought out by an investi- 
gation of tractors in IlHnois^ is that a third of the tractor owners increased 
the size of their farms after purchasing tractors. In so far as tractors come to 
be used in this State, it may be expected that they will tend to continue the 




Fig. 77. plan of a southern new york farm 

This farm represents an extreme case in which twenty-two parcels of hind have been combined to form 
one farm of 154.3 acres. The scattered, patchwork appearance of this farm shows the difficulties that 
have been encountered in trying to acquire enough land to make a farm of reasonable size 

process of combination of farms begun when the first labor-saving machine 
came into use, nearly a century ago. It may also reasonably be expected 
that the tractor will give greater impetus to the rearrangement of farms, 
because large fields are necessary for economical operation. 



' Tractor experience in Illinois, page 7. 
Farmers' bul. 963. 1918. 



By Arnold P. Yerkes and L. M. Church. U. S. Dept. Agr. 



410 W. I. Myers 

The response to the conditions that have made desirable some rearrange- 
ment of farms has l^een varied. A few persons have rearranged farms too 
rapidly, giving undue importance to this phase of farm management and 
f)ften incurring greater expense in making the rearrangement than is justi- 
fied by the saving to be made. To this class of persons would lielong many 
rich men, some over-enthusiastic students, and a few farmers. On the 
other hand, most farmers have not made these readjustments as rapidly 
as would proba])ly l)e justified. Agricultiu'al conditions for the decade pre- 
ceding 1915 justified a more rapid rearrangement of farm layouts than 
any other period since the Civil War, and these conditions may reasonably 
b'3 expected to continue. 

The layout of a farm is far from being the most important factor for 
success in farm management. For this reason the improvements of farm 
layout should always be subsidiary to the main ])usiness of farming, 
which is the producing of food. Plans for a satisfactory rearrangement 
require much thought and time. Both the changes to be made and the 
order in which they are to be made sliould be determined in advance. Any 
one planning to rearrange a farm should Ijc very sure of his plans and then 
should procf^ed slowly. 

FARM LAYOUT 
SIZE OF FIELDS 

The most important factor in the layout of farms is the size of ilu^ 
farmed fields. Size of fiekls affects not only the efficiency of labor, but 
also the economy of fencing and of land. 

Ejfect of size of fields on labor 

The most important effect of size of fields is on the labor required for 
the different field operations. For economy of labor, fields should be 
large. The importance of size of fields as affecting labor depends on the 
numlxn- of horses driven, and on the operation to be performed. The 
negro with one nude can farm small fields, but when three- to six-horse 
teams are used, fields should be large. With tractors it is even more 
important that fields should be large. It is more important to have large 
fields for plowing than for mowing. Large fields are not usually mowed 
all at once, but in two or more parts. 

In order to determine the effect of size of fields on the labor required for 
various farm operations, a study was made of the labor records, for the years 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



411 



1914 to 1917, of the farms on which cost accounts have been kept by the 
owners in cooperation with the New York State College of Agriculture and 
the Office of Farm Management of the United States Department of Agri- 
culture. In these cost accounts an account is kept with each crop rather 
than with each field. On many farms two or more fields of the same crop 
are produced and the labor records for the different fields are not kept 
separate. For this study, only those records were included in which only 
one field of a given crop was grown, or in which the records of the different 
fields had been kept separate. In all cases the data are actual time records 
kept by farmers. The effect of size of fields on the labor required for 
various farm operations is shown by tables 3 to 8. In considering the 
results of these tables it should be borne in mind that the larger fields are 



TABLE 3. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Plow an Acre 



Size of fields 
(acres) 


Number 

of 

fields 


Average 
size of 
fields 

(acres) 


Average 

length of 

fields 

(rods) 


Time required to 
plow one acre 


Man 
hours 


Hor.se 
hours 


Less than 2 

2-4 9. 


40 
57 
78 
40 
27 


1.02 

3.48 

7.24 

11.68 

20.20 


20. () 
34.() 
49.9 
54.7 
77.9 


8.5 
6.5 
6.2 
5.7 
5.1 


19 8 
15 


5-9 9. 


16 '* 


10-14.9 


14 3 


15 or more 


13 2 






Total 


242 


""7^51 


""45.'4 


5^8 




Average 


14 8 









usually found in regions of more level topography. Large fields are usually 
found also on the larger farms. Since both of these correlated factors have 
an effect on the labor required for various farm operations, it is prolxable 
that the results due to size of fields alone are less than the figures 
indicate. 

Apparently the saving of labor in plowing effected with larger fields, as 
shown in table 3, is not due to the use of more horses per team, since there 
is httle variation in the average number of horses per man between the 
smallest and the largest fields. One of the reasons for the saving of labor 
with large fields is the time lost in turning in small fields. If the fields 



412 



W. I. Myers 



wei'c plowed with a 14-incli plow, 110 turns to the acre would 1)0 required 
in plowing fields of 1 acre, but only 29 turns to the acre would be required 
in the 27-acre fields. The necessary time required to turn a three-horse 
team and the plow, and get ready to start back, was found to average about 
a half minute. In addition to the time necessarily lost in turning, there 
is a tendency to rest oftener when turns are frequent. 



TABLE 4. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Roll an Acre 



Size of fields 
(acres) 


Number 

of 

fields 


Average 
size of 

fiL'lds 

(acres) 


Average 

length of 

fields 

(rods) 


Time required to 
roll one acre 


Man 
hours 


Horse 
hours 


Less than 3 


9 
15 
29 
11 
12 


1.58 

3.91 

7.47 

11.09 

20.97 


22.0 
41.2 
49.8 
48.5 
85.9 


1.18 
0.95 
0.08 
0.77 
0.65 


2.36 


3-4 9 


1.90 


5-9 9 


1 36 


10-14.9 


1.54 


15 or more 


1.30 






Total 


7f. 


'"8'SI 


' '56^4 


"'o'72 




Average ... . . 


1 44 









The saving of time in rolling large fields (table 4) is proportionately as 
great as that in plowing large fields, but, since rolling is a rapid operation, 
the total hours saved per acre are less in rolling than in plowing. 



TABLE 5. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Drill an Acre 




An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



413 



TABLE 6. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Mow an Acre 



Size of fields 
(acres) 


Number 

of 

fields 


Average 
size of 
fields 
(acres) 


Average 

length of 

fields 

(rods) 


Time required to 
mow one acre 


Man 
hours 


Horse 
hours 


Less than 2 


11 

21 
11 

7 


1.54 

3.35 

7.08 

15.73 


28.5 
37.0 
46.2 
61.4 


1.3 
1.2 
1.0 
1.0 


2 6 


2-4.9 


2 4 


5-9.9 


2 


10 or more 


2 






Total 


50 


'"5"50 


""40'S 


LI 




Average 


2 2 









Size of fields is less important in mowing (talkie 6) than in most other 
farai operations. One reason for this tlifference is that large fields usually 
are not mowed as one field but are mowed in two or more parts. 



TABLE 7. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Cut and Bind an Acre 
OF Corn with a Corn Harvester 



Size of fields 
(acres) 


Number 

of 

fields 


Average 
size of 
fields 

(acres) 


Average 

length of 

fields 

(rods) 


Time required to 

bind one acre 

of corn 


Man 
hours 


Horse 
hours 


Less than 5 


7 
9 
6 


3.63 

7.12 

14.40 


43.4 

48.7 
70.1 


2.3 
2.1 

1.8 


6.6 
5.4 
5.5 


5-9.9.. 


10 or more 


Total 


22 


s'o 


*52'9 


2^0 




Average 


5.6 



The cost-account data on which these studies were based could not be 
used for studying the effect of this factor on dragging and cultivating. 
However, there is every reason to suppose that, in these operations as 
in the others, larger fields give more effective use of labor. The saving 
of labor by large fields in any one operation may not be important, but 
the aggregate saving in several operations is worthy of careful con- 
sideration. 



414 



W. I. Myers 



TABLE S. 



Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Cut and Bind an Acre 
OF Grain with a Grain Harvester 



Size of fields 


Number 

of 

fields 


Average 
size of 
fields 

(acres) 


Average 

length of 

fields 

(rods) 


Time required to 

bind one acre 

of grain 




Man 
hours 


Horse 
hours 


Less than 2 

2-4 9 


10 
30 
34 
15 

IS 


1.17 

3.54 

7.09 

11.69 

20.47 


22 2 

37/2 
45.7 
49.7 

77.8 


2.22 
L61 
1.33 
1.38 
1.23 


5.77 
4.22 


5-9 9 

10-14 9 


3.81 
3.74 


15 or more 


3.6G 






Total .... 


107 


'"s'44 


""47'l 


" r34 




Average 


3.87 







EJfed of size of fields on economy of fencing and of land 

Fences around crop fields make 'more or less land untillable. With 
fields of a constant shape, the larger the field, the fewer rods of fence to 
tiie acre are required to inclose it. Therefore, with larger fields a smaller 
proportion of the area is occupied by fences. If a square field of 1 acre is 
fenci^.l, about 50 rods of fence are required to inclose it; if a square field 
of 10 acres is fenced, only 16 rods of fence to the acre are recjuired to inclose 
it; while only 8 rods of fence to the acre are required to inclose a square 
field of 40 acres. If the width of the land occupied by fences in the three 
fields were uniform, the amount of waste land to the acre would be twice 
as much in the lO-acre field as in the 40-acre field, and more than six times 
as much in the 1-acrc field as in the 40-acre field. 

A study was made of the relation of size of fields to economy of fencing 
and of laud for the fenced crop-fi(>lds on the fifty-three New York farms. 
All fields of a given size are included, regardless of shape. The results 
are shown in taJ)Ie 0. In tlu^se i-esults, the numl:)er of I'ods of fence to the 
acre includes all of the fence around each field. When a fence serves for 
two fields, the amount of fence necessary for each would be correspondingly 
reduced. 

The importance of the effect of size of fields on land occupied })y fences 
and on the amount of fencing depends on the value of the land, on the 
amount of cro^i land fenced, and on the cost of fence maintenance. If 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



415 



the farm were divided into 2-acre fenced fields, about 4.5 per cent of the 
crop land would be occupied by fences; or, in other words, of every 100 
acres of crop land, only 95.5 acres would be available for producing crops. 



TABLE 9. 



REL.'i.TiON OF Size of Fields to Economy of Fencing and of Land in Crop 
Fields Completely Fenced 



Size of fields 

(acres) 


Number 

of 

fields 


Average 
size of 
fields 

(acres) 


Rods 

of fence 

to the 

acre 


Per cent 

of crop land 

occupied 

by fences 


Less than 4 . . 


26 
41 
&1 
27 
24 
12 


2.15 

6. 30 

9.84 

13.28 

18.44 

38.. 33 


36.7 
21.1 
16.7 
15.1 
12.7 
9.0 


4 frl 


4-7.9 


3,75 


8-11.9 


2 66 


12-1.5 9 


2 26 


16-23 9 


1 S5 


24 or more . 


1 12 






Total 


194 


1L37 


' is'i 




Average 


2 29 



Conclusions on effect of size of fields 

The preceding studies show that large crop fields give greater economy 
of labor than do small fields. The effect of size of fields on labor, on any 
farm, depends on the number of horses driven to a team and on the crops 
grown, but it is important on every farm. The effect of size of fields on 
the economy of fencing and of land depends on the proportion of the crop 
area fenced, on the value of the land, and on the cost of fence maintenance, 
but it is important on most farms. For these reasons farmed fields should 
be as large as conditions will permit. 

The size of the farm, the type of farming, and the length of the rotation 
or rotations followed, Hmit the size of fields on any farm. With the practice 
of more or less definite crop rotations, it is desirable to have as many fields 
as there are years in the rotation, and to have the fields of approximately 
equal size. With 100 acres of land available for general crops and a five- 
years rotation, the most desirable size of field would be 20 acres. Tliis 
would give five 20-acre fields. On some farms, two distinct rotations are 
followed — a short rotation of more intensive crops on fields near the build- 
ings, and a longer rotation of more extensive crops on the remoter fields. 



416 



W. I. Myers 




I® rP ' 



,«.,« 



'3 5", 



■)\ 






" * » \' 






I, » =■ 
Kb e s 



ft &; 1 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



417 



Under these conditions a greater number of fields would be desirable, the 
number and size depending on the length of the rotations and the area 
of land available for crops. Where truck crops are grown, many fields of 
small to medium size are necessary. 




Fig. 79. a farm having about the same chop area 
as the farm shown in figure 7s, but divided into 
seven fields of good size and shape 

A five- or six-years rotation is followed, the remainder of 
the land being used for minor crops. There are no road fences 
and the fields are farmed to the edge of the road 

Farm area, 108.8 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 10.3 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 50 rods 

Physical features, such as shai^e of farm, differences in soil or drainage, 
streams, and swamps, often make it impossible to have all the farmed 
fields as large as the crop area and the rotation would make desirable. 
In such cases two, or even more, fields may be farmed together as one 
course of the rotation. 



418 



W. I. Myers 




^ ^ fXs ' (TO 









Fig. 80. 



A FARM OF MODERATE SIZE DIVIDED INTO NINETEEN FIELDS, MO.STLT 
OF SMALL SIZE 



The patch of woods surrounded by orop land occupies an untillablo rock outcrop 
Farm area, 191.7 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 5.7 acres 
Average distance to farmetl fields, 77 rods 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



419 




Fig. 81. another farm of the same size as that shown in figure 80, but divided 
into four large fields for the main rotation (corn, oats, hay two tears) and 
four small fields for beets, potatoes, alfalfa, and other minor crops 

Farm area, 205.7 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 11.2 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 53 rods 



420 



W. 1. Myeu« 



. Ftiriii fields are often smaller than is either necessary or desirable. On 
many farms, little attention has been i)aid to the enlarging of fields to 
]x>rniit more effective use of labor and machinery. The crop area is still 
cut. up into small fields by the original stone rows or fences built when the 
land was cleared, because it is easier in any one year to farm around 




Fig. .S2. an example of patch farming 

The crop land was fainifil in twenty-four fields averaging 4.5 acres each. There were three patches 
of corn, five of oats, one of jjotatoes, one of buckwheat, and fourteen of hay on this farm in 1914. There 
were few obstacles to prevent the enlarging of the fields, and this has been done since the map was made 

Farm area, 212 afrcs 

Average size of farmed fields, 4.5 acres 



these <)l)structions th;ui to remove them. Furthermore, there are con- 
stant forces tending toward smaller fields. Perhaps the seeding on part 
of a meadow fails. The patch is plowed up, and thereafter is often farmcHl 
as a sei )arate field. A drought may prevent planting the entire field to the 
desired ciop. The farms included in this investigation average sligiitly 
less 1li;iii 100 a,cies of general crop land (other than fruit) to the farm, 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



421" 



divided into eleven fields averaging 9 acres each. On most of these farms 
a three- to six-years rotation is followed. The fields are smaller and more 
numerous than is either necessary or desirable. Yory often, several small 




Fig. S3, a farm smaller in total area but a little larger in crop area than that 

SHOWN IN FIGURE 82 

The fields arc large and most of them are of good .shape 
Farm area, 163 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 16.7 acres 
Average distance to farmed fields, 43 rods 

patches of a given crop are grown on one farm without any real reason. 
Much time that is lost in farming these scattered patches could be saved 
by bringing them together into one field. 



422 



W. I. Myers 



There are many factors that make difficuh or even impossible the task 
of enlarging farm fields to the size most desirable. On some farms, physi- 




FlG. 84. A LARGE FARM DIVIDED INTO TWENTY-ONE CROP FIELDS AVERAGING 12 ACRES EACH 

Farm area, 293.1 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 12 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 70 rods 

cal features will partially prevent the combining of small fields into larger 
fields. ( )n other farms, the prospective savings with larger fields do not 
justify the expense necessary to make them. On many farms, however, 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



423 



the readjustments can be made very easily. In any case the problem, is 
worthy of careful consideration. 

Maps of several New York farms of various sizes, which present striking 
contrasts in the average size of farmed fields, are shown in figures 78 to 85 
(pages 416 to 423). 



Z50 SOO 7,SO 








'm^^"ss''^h\ 



IVO OP5 
30.63. 



o 



'^m^^miQs^k 



Fig. 85. a smaller farm than that shown in figure 84, 

BUT with its six CROP FIELDS AVERAGING 27 ACRES EACH 

Farm area, 204.4 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 27 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 30 rods 



424 



W. I. M^-ERS 



SHAPE OF FIELDS 

The shape of farm fields Hkevvise has an important effect on the eco- 
nomical use of labor, fencing, and land. 

Effect of shape of fields on labor 

It is a fact commonly accepted that more time to the acre is required 
for performing farm operations in fields of irregular shape than in fields 
of regular shape. In order to determine the effect of this factor on the 
time required for plowing an acre, E. L. Baker kept a careful record- of 
the time required to plow fields of different shapes. The dimensions and 

shapes of the fields are indi- 
cated in figui'e 80. 

All conditions were made 
as uniform as possible. Small 
areas were takcMi in order to 
secure uniformity of soil and 
moisture conditions. All the 
fields were plowed by the 
same man and team. A part 
of a forenoon and a part of 
an afternoon were spent in 
plowing each field in order to 
obviate any diftei'ence in freshness of the team. A Wiard walking plow 
was used, turning a furi'ow 14 inches wide and 8 inches deep. 

Field A was plowt^d lengthwise, fis indicated by the arrows in the dia- 
gram. Field B, (>qual in size to field A, was plowxxl the short way. Field 
C was triangular in shape and was i)lowed the long way. The time i-equired 
to plow each field -and the rate of jilowing to the acre are shown in table 10. 
Altho fields A and B are of the same size, about 14 per cent more time 
was ]-equired to i)low field B. This was due to the shoi'tei- furrows and 
more frequent turns in field B, which wasted considerable time. It re- 
quired 22 per cent more time to plow the triangular field C than to ]:)low 
field A. Altho the average length of fm-rows in fields B and C are the 
same, seven per cent more time was required to plow field C. The 




Fig. S6. 



DIMENSIONS AND MANNER OF PLOWING OF 
FIELDS OF VARIOUS SHAPES 



- Eoonomical effects of shape and size of fields upon agriculture. By E. L. Baker. Thesis, Department 
of Agricultural Economies and Farm Management, Cornell University. (Unpublished.) 1909. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



425 . 



steadily diminishing length of fiu-rows in field C worried the horses more 
than did the short fm-rows of the same average length in field B. 

TABLE 10. Relation of Shape op Fields to Time Required to Plow an Acre 



Field 


Size of 
field 

(square feet) 


Time 
required to 
plow field 


Timp 

required to 

plow one acre 

at same rate 


A 


28,141 
28,141 
17,976 


218 min. 
248 min. 
170 min. 




B 




C 









Any irregular shape for a farm field is undesirable. The larger the 
proportion of the area of a field in short rows, the worse is the shape of the 
field and the greater is the amount of labor wasted in farming it (fig. 87). 




Fig. 87. small, irregular fields, which waste labor and land and are expensive 

to fence 

Triangular fields have the largest proportion of short rows and are the 
most wasteful of labor. Square fields are bad if they are small, because 
with mowing or other operations that require going around the field the 
bouts become extremely short near the finish; if they are large enough to 
be cut in two for these operations, however, they are satisfactory. For 



420 W. I. Myers 

fields of moderate size, the oblong shape is the best. The most desirable 
proportions depend somewhat on the size of the field and on the number of 
operations to be performed crosswise of the field. Oblong fields from one 
and one-half to three times as long as their width are usually satisfactory 
(fig. 88). Small fields should be proportionally longer than large fields, in 
order to provide longer rows. Fields long in proportion to their width are 
very conveniert for plowing and other operations performed length- 
wise, ])ut are inconvenient for dragging or cultivating crosswise. They 




Fig. 88. a larue rectangular field adapted to economical operation 

This field is lOf) rods long and 10 rods wide 

also require more travel with an empty wagon. In New York State 
little cultivating is done crosswise, and hence this drawback is not impor- 
tant. When a tractor is used, the length of the field is the most 
important consideration. 

The importance of the effect of shape of field on labor varies inversely 
with the size of the field. The smaller the field, the more important is 
its shape; the larger tlie field, the less important shape becomes. Even 
the short rows in a large field may be longer than the longest rows in a 
small field. A dozen short rows in a 2-acre field may mean a considerable 
proportion of time wasted, while the effect of the same number of short 
rows on th(> labor necessary to farm a 20-acre field would be small. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



427 



The importance of the effect of shape of field on labor depends also on 
the operations to be performed, and hence on the crops grown. The more 
intensive crops require a greater nmnber of operations, and therefore a 




Fig. 89. a small farm in central new york having badly shaped fields 

Efficient use of labor is impossible in fields like these 
Farm area, Co.4 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 2.7 acres 
Average distance to farmed fields, 44 rods 

larger amount of time is wasted by growing such crops in irregular fields. 
With extensive crops such as hay or alfalfa, the waste of time in irregu- 
lar fields is less important. This fact is recognized by farmers, and very 
badly shaped fields are usually kept in hay as much of the time as possible. 



428 



W. 1. Myers 



Ejfcd of aha-pe of fields on economy of fencing and of land 

Square fii'lds require the fewest rods of fence to the acre for a given size. 

A square field of 10 acres would require^ KiO rods of fence to inclose it. 

A rectangular field 80 by 20 rods would include the stune area but would 

require 200 rods of fence. With the annual cost of fence maintenance at 



o - zea. 
-7./ a- 




T 



/ 



/ 



1- sja. 



- J 3 <3 ■ 



J - 2.pj. 



-6.a<3,- 









V-.^A* 



» APPleS" " 



JCALE IX FfCr 



Fig. 90. a small farm in western new york having some well-shaped and some 

badly shaped fields 

P'iolds A and E aro hilly, and are thorpforo farniod .separately. The unnecessary fence between fields 
E and F makes it impossible to farm into the shar|) corner of either field. Wide fence rows, full of stone 
and brush, occupy 5 per cent of the crop land of this farm. Land is worth $120 an acre 

F.arm area, (i9 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 4..'") acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 79 rods 

() cents a rod, it would cost S2.40 a year more to keep the rectangular 
fiekl fenced. 

Conclusions on effect of f^hape of fields 

For the field of oi'dinary size, the ol^long shape permits the most efficient 

use of labor, while the squai-e shape is the most economical of fencing and 

of lantl. For pastures, therefore, the most economical shape is square, 

because tliis provides the shortest line of fence and only four corner posts. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



429 



Saving labor is usually more ini[)ortant than saving land and fencing, 
and hence oblong shapes are the most desirable for crop fields of moderate 
size. Very large crop fields may be square to save fencing, and yet be 
long enough to permit of efficient use of labor. Irregular shapes should be 
avoided when this is possible without too great expense. 

The shape of farm fields has been affected by topography, drainage, 
streams, soil, and other natural factors, as well as by the manner in which 




Fig. 91. a crooked farm in southern new tork with irregular fields 

The crooked Vjoard fence between fields D and E makes 2.5 acres of short rows in field D and 1.5 acres 
of short rows in field E. By straightening the fence all the short rows in field E and most of those in 



field D could be eliminated, 
surv^eyed 



The crooked outline of the farm is due to the way in which this section was 

Farm area, 101.5 acres 

-Average size of farmed fields, ll.fi acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 4S rods 



the farms were cleared. On the farms included in this investigation 
42 per cent of the crop land was in fields that were ai)proximately oblong 
in shape, 8 per cent was in square fields, and 50 per cent was in irregular 
fields. The proportion of the crop area in badly-shaped fields varies in 
different agricultural I'cgions of the State, being 41 per cent on twenty- 
four western New Yoi-k farms included in this study, 52 per cent on 
eleven southern New York farms, 57 per cent on twelve central New 
York farms, and 75 per cent on four southeastern New York farms. 
The worst-shaped fields are found in that part of the State which was 



430 



W. I. Myers 



settled first. Fortunately, in this ref2;ion a large part of the crop area is in 
hay, and the shape of the fields is therefore less important than if a larger 
proportion of intensive crops were grown . The best-shaped fields are found 



r 
, 5.^ a. 

5.3 3. 



p^ G./a-. 






C- 



e.Ga. 

6.-9-3. 



X. 



/6.3 a. 



a- 



/2.5 a. 
/2.3a. 








250 

—\ — 



soo 
I 



sc^LC //v r££: r 



750 




Fig. 92. a good farm layout in central new york 

Most of the fields aro of good size and shape. A four- or five-years rotation is followed. Fields .4 and 
C, B and G, H and I, and E and F have been farmed together, each pair of fields making up a course in 
the rotation. There are some unnecessary fences which could easily be removed 

Farm area, 126. .3 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 10.5 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 32 rods 

in that part of the State which was settled last, the western part. Even in 
this region, however, there is considerable opj^ortunity for improvement. 

In some cases the shape of the fields is the result of natural features, 
and rearrangement to secure fields of better shape is impossible. In 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



431 



other cases the cost of improving the shape of the fields would be greater 
than any possible saving to be made. In many cases such improvements 
can be made easily and at reasonable expense. Before undertaking any 




Fig. 93. layout of a farm in southeastern new york 



The irregularly shaped fields are liounded by stone fences which make rearrangement difficult. Much time 
is wasted owing to the small, irregular fields in this region 
Farm area, 150 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 6.2 acres 
Average distance to farmed fields, 47 rods 



rearrangement, the probable savings and costs should be given careful 
consideration. 

Plans of farms illustrating desirable and undesirable shapes of fields 
are shown in figures 89 to 95 (pages 427 to 433). 



432 



W. I. Myers 




sa. 



.9g. 



Fig. 94. a farm layout in northern new york 

By tiling the open ditches tlie size and shape of these fields could be greatly improved. 
Some improvement could be made without any expense 
Farm area, 104. .5 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, (1.9 acres 
Average distance to farmed fields, 96 rods 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



433 



y .■& Q I 




1 


-1' 


[^fti 




Rsr^ ^^rjK 


1 


^ ^ 1 ^ ^^ 


1 


'^'^ r^j R> 








^ 



-^^ 



^ 




tf 




< 




Ix 




M 




» 




o 


1 






is 


»:c^ 


w 


^=^ 


?1 






==.-§ 


:<5 




Pi 


H 


?■? 




«a a 


^ 
g 




o 


^■2 'a. 


l/J 


So« 


< 


--5^1^ 


fe 


S^-s^ 


o 






53 M tifl 


s: 


pSf^ 


<i 






Qi > > 


a. 


f^« 



434 W. I. Myers 

LOCATION OF FIELDS WITH RESPECT TO BUILDINGS 

Travel between barns and crop fields is not directly productive work. 
It is merely getting ready to do something. For this reason crop fields 
should be as readily accessible to the farmstead as possible. 

The importance of the effect of tliis factor depends principally on the 
distance traveled and on the crops grown. For any given rotation of 
crops, the relative values of near-by and distant fields can be easily deter- 
mined. With a five-years rotation of silage corn, oats, wheat, hay, the 
minimum number of trips to the acre, with average yields, would be about 
as follows: 

Man trips Horse trips 
Silage corn (including 10 loads of manure to the acre to the acre 

to the acre) 18.0 48.0 

Oats 3.5 8.0 

Wheat 3.5 8.0 

Hay 2.1 3.8 

Hay 2.1 3.8 

Total above rotation 29.2 71 .G 

Annual average for aliove rotation (approxi- 
mately) 6 14 

If a field is a half mile distant from the barn, each round trip means a 
mile of travel, or at least 6 man miles and 14 horse m.iles of travel for each 
acre each year with the above rotation. This would reciuire at least 2 
hours of man time and 4.5 hours of horse time, which, at 30 cents an hour 
for man labor and 20 cents an hour for horse labor, would cost about 
$1.50. Since .$1.50 is G per cent interest on $25, it is evident that a field 
adjoining the barn would be worth about $25 an acre more for general 
farming than an equally good field a half mile away under the conditions 
given. 

The average distance between farmstead and fields depends chiefly on 
the size of the farm, the shape of the farm, the location of the farmstead 
with respect to the fields, and the size and arrangement of the fields. 
Other factors remaining constant, the larger the farm, the greater is the 
distance l^etween farmstead and fields. This is one of the most important 
factors limiting the size of farms. If the size of a farm be indefinitely 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 435 

increased, a point will be reached where the advantages of greater size 
are offset by the time lost in travel between buildings and fields. Any 
further increase in size then means a duplication of buildings. 

The shape of the farm is nearly as important as the size in its effect on 
distance to fields. All long, narrow shapes are bad, since they mean that 
much of the land is farther from the buildings than it would be if the farm 
were more nearly square (fig. 96). Square or nearly square farms permit 
the most convenient arrangement of fields with respect to buildings 
(fig. 97). The ideal arrangement is to have half of the land on each 
side of the highway, with the buildings in the center of the farm (fig. 98) . 
By this arrangement the travel to fields may be reduced to a minimum, 
and yet the advantages of living on the highway are retained. With any 
shape of farm and with the usual systems of farming, the most advan- 
tageous location for the buildings from the standpoint of labor efficiency 
is in the center of the crop land; but if this necessitates locating the build- 
ings away from the liighway, the disadvantages of the plan moi'e than 
offset the saving of labor except in the case of very large farms. It is in 
some cases possible to put the house on the road by running a road thru 
the farm. When this can be done, the advantages to be gained much 
more than offset the value of the land lost. A location in the middle of 
the side of the farm on the road, is usually preferable to one in the corner 
nearest town. 

It is usually desirable to have as many fields as possible corner on the 
farmstead. Often the average distance to the nearest corner of the crop 
fields can be reduced by enlarging the fields. 

Because of the greater cost of farming distant fields, farmers tend to 
keep such fields in less intensive crops. In New York, fields too remote to 
be cultivated economically are kept in hay almost continuously. If the 
hay from such fields is to be sold, it is usually stacked or drawn to a near- 
by barn rather than to the main buildings. Fields too distant to be 
profitably cropped with hay are used for pasture. By such plans farmers 
have adjusted their practice to make the best of bad field arrangements. 

On many farms, the remote fields are never manured and are contin- 
ually getting poorer. Frequently such fields, too distant to be farmed 
economically by their owner, are directly across the road from a neighbor's 
house. The best way to put the buildings in the middle of the farm is 
to buy the land across the road when tliis is possible. 



41G 



W. I. Myers 



'^ 'S 9'/ 



\ 



'S£'2 






K O On I 
,1 ^ ^* • 




m S ^ 



05 m > © IS 



E 2H«J 



La ea 



H ^ 



m--3 O — 



o 2 !; o & 

o o g "^ 2 

C2 T i S 

£ ^ 3 "^ M 

OJ M * O^ 



M o S " E 



C5 

5 S 



So 



«= S 

=3^ <U 






-j3j3'2 >> 



- A 

-3 O oO 3 

„ C oj -^ "^ 

O J= 2 c S 

^ t- "^ ^ G 

o SB'S 3 e 

s'^ s ^ S 

g~ o — -- 
^« g_tc 2 

^^■- p . 



o e:^5 p 



— 7^ > 03 
0^ o P '^'O 
be c to 0"-' 
03 03 t-J3e« 



5-9 S £j 



£ t- u. 

s > > 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



437 




Fig. 97. a much larger farm than that shown in figure 9G, but with about 
the same average distance to fields 

This farm is made up of four original farms. Many fields have been oombined and enlarged 
and the process is still goins on. Most of the fields are of good size and shape, hut there is 
opportunity for further iniiirovenient 

Farm area, 369.1 aere.s 

Average size of farmed fields, 10.1 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 8C rods 



438 



W. I. Myers 



As has previously been pointed out, the inaccessibihty of the fields on 
many farms is a natural consequence of the way in which farm laj'outs 
have developetl. In the first place, little attention was paid to this 
consideration in laying out farms for settlement. Again, as farms have 

























D' 


E' 


r' 






D 


C 


r 




/'AR/^JTSAC 




/^ARMSTCAD 












A 


B 


C 




A 


B' 


c 



























Fig. 9S. two good farm layouts 

If a lOO-aore farm had citlu'r of J these .field arrangements, the average distance to fields would he le 

than 30 rods 



been combined it has not always been possible to buy land adjacent to 
the farm already owned. Just as the layout of some farms has been im- 
proved by combination, that of others has been made worse. Within 
reasonable limits it is more important to have enough land than to have it 
convenient for working; or, in other words, the advantage of having more 
land may offset the disadvantages of an inconvenient location. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



439 











g M 03 
2 O 01 



^ c-a 
>,« ci 

q C n 



W '^ 



:5 V 
a CO 

S ? ^ 

r ^ ° 






m« 






« S 






ooo 
— 03 o 

SI 

c-o . 

V a a 

S S S 



§^0 

7i C > 
S 0) 
c3j3 



U 0) OJ 
03 M M 

rH C3 oj 



440 



W. I. Myers 



It is i5ro)):il)ly worth while to see what an ideal arrangement is like, 
even tho such an ideal is unattainable in most cases. Reahzing the 
importance of a convenient arrangement, one can plan an arrangement 




Fig. 100. a farm plan with the farmstead in the corner most distant from the 
fields, the worst possible arrangement 

This f;irm might ho four times as large with no gicat 
the principal disadvantages of a farm four tin 
Farm area, 83. (> acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 4.1 acres 
Average distance to farmed fields, [)l rods 



verage distance to the fields. Such a plan has 
as large, with none of the advantages 



for his farm which will approximate this ideal as closeh^ as conditions 
l)(>rmit. Farms illustrating good and pooi- arrangements with regard to 
this factor are shown in figures 99 to ill (pages 439 to 451). 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



441 







a eoo -^oo eoo eoo._ / 
I . " I I I I =1 T 

SCALC //v rccr 




- ^.5.95^ J 
P-'^^-S.Qd. /2,3a. 

^•^^1 \/2.2aA 



3,93. 
'3.7 3. 



•I Ui 



■-^APPLEl 



m 



-"/^rruL.- I |ooc 

o o o I fi'o O 'j 



o o o 
■io o o 



o o \/./al ; 



\0-.3af^-^ 



n-.53.' 



1 o^ ^o o"o o" 
o/JPPL€° ° 
PEN TCP 

{\OPCH/JRP 



U 



3.G3. 



\ 3.5a.\ 



Fig. 101. A FRUIT farm in western new YORK 

The part north of the raih-ond was originally a separate farm. The average dis- 
tance to fields is as great as for many farms three or four times as large. The 
woodlot occupies tillable land which is too valuable for producing lumber 
Farm area, 97.5 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 5.1 acres 
Average distance to farmed fields, 90 rods 



442 



W. 1. Myeks 




Fig. 102. a central new york farm 

There are few interior fences or other barriers to prevent planning a satisfactory field arrangement for 

this farm 
Farm area, 14fi 5 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, S.5 acres 
Average distance to farmed fields, 70 rods 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



443 




Fig. 103. 



A WESTERN NEW YORK FARM ON WHICH THE FARMSTEAD IJ^ 
AWAY FROM THE MAIN ROAD 



IN THE CENTER, 



The farmstead was originally located in field K. There is no suitable building site along the highway 
because the highway is so much above the adjoining land. Under these conditions the present location 
is the best possible 

Farm area, 114. .5 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 9.1 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 3o rods 



/l ^^ 



W. I. Myers 



W 



j:/3.aa. 







Fig. 104. a southern new york farm 

The farmstead is situated in the center of the crop area, on the road. The average distance to fields 
is about one-fourth that on the farm shown in figure 99. The deed of this farm specifies lUO acres, more 
or less 

Farm area, 144.5 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, i\.'.^ acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 29 rods 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



445 



;f^,, 










J§;^!?ir^ 
























"" c3 S 






M 2 S 






fl C — 






'C 1) « 
















J5 O 






bt+^ a 






'3 cj " 




M 


c bO 




o 


2^^ 




>< 






(S 


OJ OlO 




■c-flM 




ta 


0^ 4) fi^ 




^ 


5^6 




< 


8SS 




« 


.2 J:-c 




H 


^ +j 




z; 


3-0 O 




w 


X! O U 




o 




CO 




I.'-'O 


T) 


g 




™2 






So 






0(N 


H 


C3r-l 


o 

< 




•O ^- 




62 

■T3-T3 


« 


."sS 






o ° S S 



■5 O " Q 

c "^ ^ 



Oi 






446 



W. I. Myers 




FiCx. 106. ANOTHER POOR LAYOUT 

The fields on this faitn are small iiiid iriegular, and the farmstead is as far from the fields as possible 
Many of the fence rows are so full of stone that it would not pay to clear them. The crooked fields ar^ 
not due to topography, but largely to the manner of clearing 

Farm area, 211.1 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 7.N acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 113 rods 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



447 




0:li%i 



Fig. 107. a common fasm l.\tout in western new yohk 

Field O, at the back end of this farm, is directly across the road from the house of an adjoining farm. 
This field is 183 rods from the owner's barn, up hill, and is too far away to be cropped econonjicaliy even 
tho it is the best field on the farm. It should Vjc worth from $25 to $30 an acre more to the neighbor 
than to the present owner 

Farm area, 17.5.8 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 8.7 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 104 rods 



448 



W. I. Myers 



o oX^ Lr^ o 
- o"^ . o 

"^ \° 

o o oMJ o i 







w ° '?' 



> > 
« 






O ^ 



An Economic Study of Farm T.ayout 



449 




Fig. 109. a good farm layout in western new york 

All of the fields can he reached from the farmstead with a mini- 
mum of travel. The fields aie larsrc, but some of them are very irreg- 
ular. Field A has rows 100 rods long and is almost ideal lor etbcient 
operation 

Farm area, 204.4 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 27 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 30 rods 



450 



W. I. Myers 




w 








o: 








o 

in 


SS 






^ 








H 


■nti 






g 


C =3 






tf 






M 


U 










S6 




h 




O 


■5 si 




sS 




a)-d 




O 












e2 




''^S 

^cS 








2-2 


a 


rts 






< 


o iS 




"0^ 


CI r- 


?; 


^■2 


as 


J3 03 


C3 




<< 


II 


O 


Is 


u 


O-O 


Cl 


m"0 


<1 




(U 




fe 


-T-, « 


o3 


M 60 


« 


3 o 


H 


03 c3 




'- 3 


a) 0) 


o 


' a 




-< 


■" S 







P^ =^ 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



451 




Fig. 111. A CENTRAL NEW YORK FARM OF APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AREA AS THAT SHOWN 
IN FIGURE 110, BUT WITH AN AVERAGE DISTANCE TO FIELDS ONLY ONE-FOURTH THAT OF 
THE OTHER FARM 

Obviously this farmer has a decided advantage in producing crops 
Farm area, 102 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 10.9 acres 
Average distance to farmed fields, 33 roda 



452 W. I. Myers 

OBSTRUCTIONS IN FIELDS 

The difficulties in farming the small, irregularly shaped fields found on 
many farms are in some cases further increased by obstructions of various 
kinds. Not only do these obstructions waste land, but, what is usually 
more important, they waste labor in farming around them. 

Sivatnpij spots 

Wet, swampy spots in cultivated fields are frecjuently found on farms 
located on the heavier soils of the State. On the fift>'-three farms included 
in these studies ;i total of more than 30 aci'cs of laud in ci-opped fields was 
occupied by such waste areas, or an average of nearly 0.() acre for each 
farm. In addition to this, much crop land needs some drainage. The 
area given includes oiily land in croi)ped fields actually untillable because 
too wet. 

Not only do these wet. swami)v places waste land that is otherwise good, 
l)Ut they hinder the culiivation of the remainder of the fields in which they 
are located. Where such areas can l)e di'ained (\-isily, it frequently pays 
to di'ain them because of the saving of land and labor. 

The plan of a westei'U New York fai-m is shown in figui'e 112. In 1917 
the swampy jiatch in field R was drained l)y a line of tile running to the 
corner of the oi)en ditch in field B. Sixty rods of tile was necessary. The 
total cost of the jo1) including work and tile, as shown l)y cost accounts, 
was $103, or ai)proximaiely SI. 70 a rod. Six-tenths of an acre of crop 
land, worth $00, was gained. The net cost of the improvement was, there- 
fore, $43. The work w;is done by farm labor at ockl times. At the same 
time the brush row between fields P and R was cleared, i^ermitting fields 
P, R, and S to be farmed as one field of 21 acres. This arrangement 
allowed the elimination of the driveway to field S. The saving in land 
and labor with the new arrangement will pay for the entire cost in a few 
years. 

Open (I itches (tiid streams 

On i]\v farms studied, a tolnl of .■)7.2 aci-es of land in cropped fields, 
or an average of about 0.7 acre foi' ea,ch farm, was occupied by open 
ditciies or hy streams (figs. 113 ;uid 114). Open ditches are continually 
filling up with dirt and weeds, so that the annual ui)keep is a considerable 
itcMn. More impoi-tant is the fact that they often divide the crop land 
i'lto fields of irregular shape. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



453 











«2 



o o 

J3 — 



j= o 

O'-C 

|« 

^ CO 

^2 



«3 a 






-a 0) 



o 2 






ci o § 

"^ "^ m 

t-. OJ <u 

oj be bfl 

^ C3 o3 

S > > 



«3 



"3 & 

E.S 



454 



W. 1. Myers 



Frequently the possible saving- of land and labor justifies the elimina- 
tion of these obstructions to cultivation. An improvement of this kind is 
shown in figures 115 and 11(3. Plan I in figure 115 shows the laj^out of 50 
acres which form part of a farm of 160 acres. The open ditch shown in 
this plan divided this area, as indicated, into irregular fields. With all 




1 


-. 


^, 


-T;. 


y 




/ 
j 

i 




«.„ 


,~ 


.1,7 




»*■ 


•e 




' :•' 






















■;' -^i 








„'» 






•V / 


'. 












•'1 



Fig. 113. a westeen new york farm having many fields of irregular shape, most 

OF THESE being DUE TO OPEN DITCHES GROWN UP TO ALDERS. THE DITCHES COULD BE 
EASILY TILED 

Farm area, 153. .3 acres 

Average size of fanned fields, .5.9 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, .53 rods 



the fields in corn there would have been more than two hundred short 
rows. The ditch was grown up to brush and wasted a considerable 
area of land. 

In the fall of 1910 this ditch was tiled up to the south end of 
field T. In the spring of 1917 the land along the ditch was cleared 
and plowed for cropping. The costs of making this imi)rovement were 
as follows: 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



455 




Fig. 114. a western new york farm on which a considerable area of land is wasted 

BY streams 

The small stream in field G wastes 1.7 acres of land and makes the remainder of the field difficult to 
farm. By deepening and straigntening the stream bed, or by tiling it, this field could be greatly improved. 
About the same area of land is wasted by another small stream in field J. Land is worth $10U an acre here 

Farm area, 100.2 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 9.4 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 54 rods 



456 



W. I. Myers 



Cost of 123 rods of tile drain ; 

1000 two-inch tile, 14 inches long $16.32 

350 three-inch tile, 14 inches long 8 . 75 

325 four-inch tile, 14 inches long 14.62 

55 six-inch tile, 14 inches long 3 . 85 

1 roll roofing to cover joints 2. 50 

331 hours man labor 44 . 12 

98 hours horse labor 9 . 80 

98 hours use of equipment 2 . 94 

Total cost of 123 rods of tile drain $102.90 

Cost per rod 0.84 





-Sis ■) 



;i 

i I' 

I I 
! \ 

I P-J2.S^. \ 



\ 






1 -L,i 



Fig. 115. plans of a SO-acre tract showing arrangement before and after tiling 

AN open ditch 

In the fall of 1916 and the spring of 1917, the open ditch was tiled .as shown and the land formerly occupied 
by it was cleared for cropping. After completing the tiling, clearing the worthless orchard, and moving 
the tenant house, the owner will work the tract in two large, oblong fields, as shown in III 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 457 

Cost of clearing land for cultivation : 

49 hours man labor $ 7 . 39 

74 hours horse labor . . 15.16 

74 hours use of equipment 2 . 63 

Total cost of clearing land for cultivation $25. 18 

Total cost of laying tile and dealing land $128 .80 

Cost per rod of laying tile and clearing land 1 . 04 





Fig. 116. the s.^me field (fig. 115) in 191 S after the tiling of the open ditch 

AND the clearing OF THE LAND FOR CULTIVATION 

One acre of land, worth $75, was gained, making the net cost of the 
improvement $53.08. The saving in labor made possible by enlarging 
and improving the shape of the fields will pay this in a short time. The 
work was all done by farm labor in the late fall and early spring, when 
other work was not pressing. 

Plan III shows this owner's ultimate plan for this part of his farm. 
The house shown in Plan II is too far away from the main farmstead and 
will be moved to a more convenient location. The apple trees have never 
borne a commercial crop. They will be cut for firewood and the remaindei- 
of the ditch will be tiled, making possible the division of this tract into 
two rectangular fields of 24.2 acres each, 160 rods long. Since a tractor is 
used on this farm, the new arrangement will make possible an important 
saving in labor. 



458 



W. I. Myers 



StoJie piles 

The abundant crop of stones found on a large part of the farm land of 
the State has given rise to many farm layout problems. In early days, 
when labor was cheap, stone fences furnished an excellent way of getting 



■*Wrft5*!WW^fSW-'W**™~***" 




Fig. 117. small, SCAT'lt>uiU) mu.m. lu.i.s wimll WASTE BOTH LAND AND LABOR 




Fig. 118. a large stone pile in the corner of a crop field 

This stone pile occupies little land and does not interfere with cultivation. The stones are convenient 
for drawing if needed for improved highways 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 459 

rid of surplus stones. In more recent times, changed conditions have made 
stone fences not only too expensive to build but also undesirable. On 
many farms the surplus stones have been thrown into small piles scattered 
at random over the different fields (fig. 117). Not only do such piles waste 
more land than do larger piles (fig. 118), but they waste labor in farming 
around them. 

Trees 

Some trees in pasture fields are desirable or shade; but trees in culti- 
vated fields are inconvenient to farm around, and they damage the crop for 
a considerable area. On one of the farms included in this study a worth- 
less apple orchard was cleared for cultivation in 1916. There were twenty- 
seven trees from sixty to seventy j^ears old, averaging from 18 to 24 inches 
in diameter. They occupied an area of 0.6 acre. The cost of cutting the 
trees and clearing the land for cultivation was as follows: 

50 pounds dynamite and wages of expert $17.00 

239 hours man labor 31 .86 

36 hours horse labor 3 . 59 

36 hours use of equipment 1 . 04 

Total cost $53 .49 



Six cords of 4-foot firewood was cut, worth $6.50 a cord, or a total of 
$39. Six-tenths of an acre of crop land, worth $45, was gained. In this 
case the cost of clearing the orchard was more than paid by the value of 
the wood and of the land gained. 

FENCES 

The early settlers on New York farms made fences of rails, stumps, or 
stones, or of combinations of these materials. These fence rows were 
difficult to mow and keep cleared, and consequently were ideal for the 
propagation of brush and trees. As more surface stones were picked up 
from the land, they were often thrown into the fence rows. Changing 
conditions have made desirable the ehmination of many fences in order 
to permit the enlargement of fields, but the wide, stony, brush-grown 
fence rows have proved a serious obstacle to this change. The increase in 
land values has made the land occupied by fences a factor worthy of con- 



460 



W. I. Myers 



sidei-ation. Labor is no longer cheap, and fencing materials must be 
purchased at increasing prices. As a result of these changes, the problem 
of fencing farms suital)ly and economically has become an important one. 
The various kinds of fences found on the fifty-three farms studied are given 
in table 11, together with data concerning the amount of each kind found: 



TABLE 11. Kinds of Fences and Amounts of Each on 53 New York Farms 



Kind of fence 



Woven wire 

Barbed wire 

Stone 

Worm rail 

Board 

Straiglit rail 

Brush 

Smooth wire 

Railroad-owned (all v/oven wire) 

Hedge 

Stone pile 

Stump 

Picket 

Barn 

Total 



Total length of fence 



Rods 

355 
797 5 
492 -1 
777.5 
067 3 
903 . 1 
990.0 
(315.2 
772.3 
711 S 
583.3 
52(>.l 
43C).7 
279.0 



80,307 2 



Miles 



8S . (i 
83 . 7 



20.3 
18.1 
9.6 
9.1 
6.2 
5 
2.4 
2.2 

T^s 

1.6 
1.4 
9 



250 9 



Length 

of fence 

per farm 

(rods) 



535.0 

505.6 

122.5 

109.0 

57 9 

54.8 

37.5 

30.5 

14.6 

13.4 

11 

9.9 

8.2 

5.3 



1,515 2 



Per cent 
of total 
fencing 



35.3 
33 4 
8.1 
7.2 
3.8 
3.6 

2.g 

2 
10 
0.9 
0.7 
7 
0.5 
0.3 



100.0 



It is difficult to define a fence. In table 11, any well-d(>fined barrier to 
cultivation between crop fields, and all pasture fences in use, are considered 
to be fences. This explains the inclusion of stone-pile and brush fences 
as separate classes in the table. They waste land, but, will not turn stock. 
On the other hand, many wire fences will not tiu'n stock. In general, 
the more land a icnco wastes, the less efficient it is in performing the most 
important function of a fence. 

Woven wire and barbed wire are the most important fencing materials 
us(h1 on New York farms, as shown in table 11. Together they constitute 
moi'(> than two-tliii'ds of the fences found on these farms. They are practi- 
cally the only kinds of fence being built under present conditions, and hence 
they will become more important as they replace other types. On these 
farms a little more woven-wire than barbed-wire fence was found. Stone 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



461 



fences were important in the southeastern and western parts of the State, 
but made up only eight per cent of the total fence. \^irginia, or worm 
rail, fences are still found on many farms. These and other wooden fences 
have survived from earlier days when lumber was cheap. They are too 
expensive to build and maintain under present conditions, and are rapidly 
being replaced by wire fences. Board fences will continue to be used to 
some extent as barnyard fences to shelter stock from winds. 



Relation of type of farming to fencing practice 
The relative importance of different types of fencing varies widely in 
different parts of the State. This is to be expected, since the respective 
localities shown in table 12 represent distinct types of farming, with differ- 
ent fence requirements. 

TABLE 12. Important Kinds of Fencing in Different Regions of New York 



Western New York 
24 farms 


Southern New \ork 
11 farms 


Southea.stern 

New York 

4 farms 


i 
Central New York 
12 farms 


Kind of 
fence 


Per 

cent of 

total 

fencing 


Kind of 
fence 


Per 
cent of 

total 
fencing 


Kind of 
fence 


Per 
cent of 

total 
fencing 


Kind of 
fence 


Per 

cent of 

total 

fencing 


Woven wire. . 
Barbed wire . 
Worm rail . . . 

Stone 

Straight rail . 
Hedge 


55.1 
11.1 
10.0 

8.3 
5.5 
2.2 


Barbed wire . 

Board 

Woven wire . 
Worm rail. . 

Stone 

Smooth wire. 


W.8 
S.9 
8.5 
6.0 
3 1 
1.4 


Barbed wire 

Stone 

Straight rail 

Board 

Worm rail. . 
Smooth wire. 


52.0 
35 7 
4.5 
3.8 
15 
0.6 


Barbed wire 
Woven wire 
Worm rail. . . 

Board 

Straight rail 
Stone 


37.2 
36.5 
5.3 
4.2 
3.6 
3.4 



Western New York 

The twenty-four farms included in the western New York group are 
located in the counties of Erie, Clenesee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, 
Ontario, Orleans, Seneca, and Yates. On these farms more than half of 
the fencing was of woven wire, while barbed wire formed but 11 per cent 
of the total. Worm rail, stone, straight rail, and hedge follow next, in 
order of use. These types are rehcs of earlier times, and all except the 
stone are rapidly disappearing. 



462 W. I. Myers 

The farms in this group are largely devoted to fruit and general farm 
crops. The farms averaged 128.G acres, of which 97.1 acres were in crops. 
They had an average of five cattle units and IG acres of permanent pasture 
per farm. Only two of the farms had more than six cows. On three 
farms a few sheep were kept. Land in this region is relatively high-priced, 
these farms averaging $120 an acre. Under such conditions, the experience 
of these farmers indicates that woven wire is the most desirable kind of 
fence. The small areas of permanent pasture are usually pastured by 
the family cow and the horses, with occasionally a few sheep. Barbed 
wire is too dangerous where horses form a considerable proportion of the 
stock pastured, and it will not restrain sheep. In answer to the question 
" What Idnd of fence do you consider best for your conditions?" all the 
farmers except one in this region expressed a preference for woven wire 
with one strand of barbetl wire on the top. The single exception was the 
owner of a farm with no pasture, who preferred no fence at all. 

Perhai)s even more reliable than these answers as an indication of the 
most desirable fence for western New York conditions is the record of 
fence purchases. Cost accoimts on these farms for the years 1914 to 1917, 
show that a total of 1070 rods of woven wire fencing have been bought 
and but 1814 rods of barJDed wire. This amount of barbed wire is little 
more than enougli to furnish a single strand of barbed wire to put ab'ove 
the woven wire. 

Southern New York 

Tlie ekn'en south(M'n New York farms are located in the counties of Cat- 
taraugus, Chemung, Wyoming, and southern Cortland. Barbed wire 
constitutes al:)Out two-thirds of the fence on the farms studied in this region, 
with smaller amounts of board, woven wire, worm rail, stone, and smooth 
wire. As in other regions, the bo.ard and worm-rail fences are fast being 
supplanted by wire fencing. 

These farms averaged IGG acres each, of which 101. G acres were in crops 
and 49.6 acres in permanent pasture. They had an average of 22.1 cattle 
units to each farm, and all but two of the farms had more than six cows. 
Land in this region is i-elatively cheap, these farms avci-aging $67 an acre. 
Under these conditions barbed wire has been proved by experience to 
be the most (h^sirable fence, considering all factors. The typical fence in 
this region is of three- or four-strand barbed wire. Where large areas of 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 463 

cheap pasture land are to bo inclosed, this in undoubtedly the cheapest 
fence that will satisfactorily turn stock. The pi-incipal stock pastured is 
cattle. As the number of horses pastured is comparatively small, the 
danger of injury to stock- by barbed wire is not great enough to justify 
inclosing the large areas of pasture by a more expensive fence, such as 
woven wire. Again, it is difficult to stretch woven wire where the topog- 
raphy is as rolling as it is in most of this regi,on. 

All except two of the farmers in this group believed barbed wire to 
be the best fence for their conditions, considering all factors. These two 
expressed a preference for woven wire because of danger of injury to stock 
by barbed wire. The typical fence favored by most of these farmers was 
a four-strand barbed wire, stretched tight, with chestaiit. posts. The 
cost accounts on these farms show that a total of 1913 rods of barbed wire 
was purchased during the years 1914 to 1917, as against 140 rods of woven 
wire. This would indicate that nearly four rods of barbed wire fence are 
being built on these fariiLs to one rod of woven wire. 

Southeastern New York 

There were only four farms studied in southeastern New York, all of 
these being located in Orange County. Barbed wire leads in the kinds of 
fence found on these farms, constituting more than half of the total fenc- 
ing. Stone fence forms more than a third of the total, and the small 
remainder is made up of straight rail, board, worm rail, and smooth wire. 
Less wooden fence is found in this section of the State than in other sec- 
tions. This is to be expected, since this region was settled first and practi- 
cally all of the wooden fence materials have now disappeared. 

The four farms in this region averaged 13.5.1 acres eaclx, of which 72.3 
acres were in crops and 52.6 acres were in i")ermanent pasture. They had 
an average of 22.4 cattle units to each farm, being interi-sive dairy farms 
with one exception. Land iii this region is relatively chec'iji. Under these 
conditions, barbed wire has ])een found to be the most satisfactory fence, 
utility and price considered. The typical fence in this region is three- 
strand barbed wire with more or less stone along the bottom. The same 
conditions that make barbed wire the most desirable fence in southei'U 
New York obtain in this region — large areas of cheap pasture land, uneven 
topography, and cattle the principal stock pastured. Four-strand barbed 
wire, stretched tight, with chestnut or oak posts, was considered by these 



464 W. I. Myehs 

dairymen to be the best fence for their conditions. Cost accounts on 
these farms show that 1544 rods of barbed wire have been purchased 
(hiring the years 1914 to 1917, as against 30 rods of woven wire. 

Ccniml New York 

The twelve farms inckided in the central New York group are located 
in the counties of Cayuga, Onondaga, Oswego, and Tompkins. On the 
farms studied in this region, barbed wire and woven wire fences are of 
equal importance, each constituting a little more than a third of the total 
fence. Worm rail, board, straight rail, and stone are found in small 
amounts. 

These farms averaged 275 acres each, of which 156.3 acres were in crops 
and 99 acres were in permanent pasture. They had an average of 31.3 
cattle imits to each farm, and all farms except one had more than six cows. 
Laud is neither as cheai) as in southern New York noi- as high as in western 
New York, averaging $74 an acre on the farms studied. The average size of 
these farms was mucli larger than that of the farms in other regions, due 
to the inclusion of four unusually lai'ge farms. This region represents con- 
ditions intermediate lietwcen those of southern and those of western New 
Yoik, and it is but natural that fencing practice should likewise be inter- 
mediate. On six of the twelve farms, woven wire was used the most for 
fencing. All except one of these were dairy farms, but they grew large 
areas of geiieral crops as well. On the other six farms, barbed wire was 
used the most for fencing. These were all more intensive dairy farms. 
They had aljout the same area of pasture and the same numl^er of cows, 
but land was clieaper, averaging .^54 an acre as against $90 an acre for 
the six farms having a largei" proportion of woven wire. The determining 
factor seemed to be the value of the land. In New York cheap land is 
usually fenced with a cheap fence, Ijarbed wire, while good land justifies 
the best fence, woven wir(\ Little barbed wire fencing is found on New 
York fiu-ni land worth $100 or more an acre. 

Distribution of fence on farms 
The division of fai'm fences into four general classes with reference to 
their location on tlie farm, is shown in table 13. Practically no temporary 
interioi- fen(;(^s were found on the farms studied, and so this classification is 
omitted. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 465 

TABLE 13. Relation of Size of Farms to Distribution of Fence 



Size of farms 
(acres) 


Number 

of 

farms 


Road 

fence 

(per cent) 


Boundary 
fence 

(per cent) 


Interior 

fence 

(per cent) 


Farmstead 

fence 
(per cent) 


Less than 100 


13 

18 
15 

7 


9 
12 
15 
16 


46 
41 
38 
35 


43 
45 
46 

48 


2 


100-159.9 

160-239 9 

240 or more 


2 
1 
1 






Total 


53 


13 


39 


46 




Average 


2 









Not all of the roadside or the boundary lines or the field division lines 
of farms are fenced. The figures given in table 13 are concerned only 
with fenced farm divisions. In table 14 is shown the distribution of all 
farm division hues, both fenced and uiifenced, and how the distribution 
is affected by the size of the farm. 



TABLE 14. Relation of Size of Farms to Distribution of Farm Division Lines 



Size of farms 
(acres) 


Number 

of 

farms 


Farm 
roadsides 
(per cent) 


Farm 
boundary 

lines 
(per cent) 


Interior 

field 
division 

lines 
(per cent) 


Farm- 
stead 
division 

lines 
(per cent) 


Less than 100 


13 

IS 
15 

7 


11 

15 
17 
19 


36 
33 
32 
33 


51 
50 
50 
47 


2 


100-159.9 


1 


160-239.9 


1 


240 or more 


1 






Total 


53 


16 


33 


50 




Average 


1 









The relation of size of farms to the proportion of farm division fines 
fenced is shown in table 15. The larger farms were more completely 
fenced, 84 per cent of all farm divisions of the largest farms being fenced 
as compared with only 65 per cent for the smallest farms. Nearly as large 



466 W. I. Myers 

TABLE 15. Relation of Size of Farms to Proportion of Farm Division Lines Fenced 





Num- 
ber of 
farms 


Per cent fenced 


8ize ol larins 
(acres) 


Roadsides 


Boundary 
lines 


Interior 
field 

division 
lines 


Farm- 
stead 

division 
lines 


Total 

farm 

division 

lines 


Less than 100 


L3 

IS 
15 

7 


52 
53 
64 

72 


82 
84 
91 
89 


55 
61 
70 

85 


78 
88 
88 
75 


65 


100-150 


68 


l()0-239 9 . . 


76 


2-10 or more 


84 






Total 

Average 


53 


02 


87 


""69 


' ' ' '83 


74 



a proportion of tlio farm l)oun(lary lines of small farms were fenced as of 
tiie large farms, hut a much smaller proportion of the roadsides and the 
interioi' field division lines. 

Economy of fencing 

The relation of size of farms to economy of fencing is shown in table 
10. In comparing the rods of fence to the acre on these farms as shown 
l)y the " Fenced " columns in the table, it should be remembered that the 
larger farms are more completely fenced. The '' Total " columns in 
table 16 show the economy that would obtain with larger farms if all 

TABLE l(i. Relation of 8ize of Farms to Economy of Fencing 





Num- 
ber 
of 

farms 


Rods por acre 


Size of farms 
(acres) 


Farm 

roadsides 


Farm 

boundary 

lines 


Interior 
field 

division 
lines 


Farmstead 

division 

lines 


Total farm 

division 

lines 




Total 1 Fenced 


Total 


Fenced 


Total 


Fenced 


Total 


Fenced 


Total 


Fenced 


Less than 101).. 

KHM.V.I.it 

UU)-23<t.9 

240 or n'lore 


13 
18 
15 


1,9 
2.0 
2.1 
1,0 


1.0 

1 1 

1 4 

I ,2 


til 

4,r. 

.'i , s 
2,9 


5.0 
3.8 
3.4 
2.6 


8,«j 
fi.S 
6.0 
4.1 


4.S 
4.2 
4.2 
3.5 


0.3 
0.2 
0.1 
0.1 


0.3 
0.2 
0,1 
0.1 


17.0 
13 6 
12 

8.7 


11.0 

n.2 

9,1 
7.3 


Total 
Average. . . 


r,3 


1 ,9 


1 ,2 


3. 9 


's.-i 


5 ,8 


4.0 


0.2 


6.1 


ii.8 


"s!? 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



467 



farm division lines were fenced. If all farm division lines on these farms 
were fenced, 17 rods of fence to an acre would be required on the smallest 
farms, but only 8.7 rods to an acre on the largest farms. 

Land occupied by fences 

A considerable area of crop land is made untillable by fences. On the 
fifty-three farms included in these studies, the total area of general crop 




Fig. 119. a stone row that functions as a fence only in wasting land and in forming 

A barrier to cultivation 
This stone row occupies a strip of land 20 feet wide. Land here is worth $100 an acre 

land thus made untillable amounted to 101.8 acres. Part of this is neces- 
sary and unavoidable, but a considerable proportion is neither necessary 
nor desirable under present conditions (figs. 119 and 120). The proportion 
of the land occupied by fences depends on the size of the farm, the size of 
the crop fields, the kind of fence, and the crops grown. While the large 
farms, among those studied, were more completely fenced, a smaller pro- 
portion of their area was occupied by fences, as is shown in table 17. 

The data given in table 18 relate to the land made untillable by fences 
around crop fields. Fences between pasture fields or orchards occupy 



468 W. I. Myers 

TABLE 17. Relation of Size of Farms to Crop Land Occupied by Fences 





Number 

of 

farms 


Average 

size 

of 

farms 

(acres) 


Crop land occupied by fences 


Size of farms 
(acres) 


Per 

farm 

(acres) 


Per cent 

of farm 

area 


Per cent 

of crop 

land 

other 

than fruit 


Less than 100 


13 
20 
20 


76.2 
127.4 

282.6 


1.08 
1.45 

2.92 


1.4 
1.1 
1.0 


2.5 


100-174 9. . 


1.8 


175 or more 


1.8 


Total 


53 


'"173^4 


" "l92 


I'i 


* 


A\'erage .... 


1.8 










.js_ 



IlK^ 



> Mt'A 




Fig. 120. a woven wire fence hk i \\ i kn two cornfields 

Even under tlio most, favorable eonditions, fences make untillahle a considerable strip of ground. This 
wire fence occujiies a strip of land li feet wide 

practically no land; but with a fence separating two general crop fields, 
the width of the strip of land made untillahle, as shown by table 18, 
would be doubled, and the lunnber of rods of fence required to waste one 
acre of land would be one-half of that given in the table. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 469 

TABLE 18. Relation of Kind of Fence and Crop to Land Occupied by Fences 



Kind of fence 



Width of land made untillable, in 
feet (one side of fence only) 



Hay 



Small 
grain 



Culti- 
vated 
crop 



Average 



Rods of 

fence 
necessary 
to occupy 
one acre 



Value 

ot land 

occupied 

by each 

rod of 

fence, 

at $100 

an acre 



Smooth wire 

Smooth wire and stone . . . 

Board fence 

Board fence and stone .... 

Woven wire 

Woven wire and stone .... 

Barbed wire 

Barbed wire and stone .... 

Straight rail 

Straight rail and stone .... 

Laid stone fence 

Laid stone fence and stone 

Stone pile 

Stump 

Worm rail 

Worm rail and stone 

Brush 

Hedge 



2.3 
6.1 
2.6 
6.0 

2.6 
5.3 
2.9 
5.9 
3.4 
5.5 
4.4 
8.5 
5.7 
5.4 
5.0 
8.4 
9.4 
7.7 



3.0 

7.2 
3.1 
5.0 
3.3 
6.6 
3.4 
8.4 
3.5 
7.4 
4.8 
11.8 
6.0 
5.8 
6.1 
8.8 
11.7 
10.6 



3.8 
7.7 
3.4 

7.2 



3.4 
7.0 
3.7 
7.6 
3.9 
9.0 
5 5 

12.3 
6.1 
7.0 
7.6 

11.7 
7.0 

10.4 



3.0 
7.0 
3.0 
6.1 
3.1 



10.9 
5.9 
6.1 
6.4 
9.6 
9.4 



9.6 



871 
377 
871 
435 
852 
419 
793 
362 
733 
362 
539 
243 
445 
435 
411 
274 
282 
276 



$0,115 
0.265 
0.115 
230 
117 
0.239 
0.126 
0.276 
. 136 
0.276 
0.186 
0.411 
225 
230 
0.243 
0.365 
0.355 
0.362 



With any fence, the width of land made untillable is least when the 
field is in hay and greatest when the field is in a cultivated crop. This is 
to be expected, since it is possible to get closer to the fence with a mower 
than with other tools. When small grains are grown, the width of the 
strip of waste land is greater than when hay is grown but less than when a 
cultivated crop is grown. The differences are not important but they are 
perceptible. 

The width of waste land along many fences is increased by the accumu- 
lation of stones that have been taken from the field and thrown along the 
fence. Even a few stones along a fence are enough to double the necessary 
waste. The stones that project farthest out into the field determine the 
width of waste along the entire side of a field. These results show that the 
presence of stone along a fence approximately doubles the width of the 
strip of land occupied. 



470 



W. I. Myers 



Smooth wire, board, and woven wire fences occupied tire least land on 
these farms (fig. 121). Smooth wire will not turn stock satisfactorily and 
board fence is ol)Solete. Woven wire stretched tight with a strand of 
barbed wire on top turns stock satisfactorily without danger of injury and 
occupies little land. Putting a strand of barbed wire above woven wire 
fence has become an ahnost universal practice on New York farms. With- 
out any tlanger of injuring stock, it prevents stock from crowding down 
the fence and tliereby ruining it. 

Barbed wire and straight rail fences waste slightly more land than does 
woven wire. It is imi^ossible to cultivate as close to barbed wire as to 



Fig. 121. 



On the left tlie brush is cut and the fence occupies luit two feet of hind 
the fence occupy a strip of hind (i fee) \vid( 



TWO SIDES OF A WOVEN WIRE FENCE 

On the right the brush and 



woven wire, because of danger of injury t-o liorses. Straight rail fence 
would be too expensive to build new, but it furnishes a satisfactory way 
of using old but sound fence rails. Bai-bed wire is the cheapest satisfac- 
tory fence for inclosing large areas of cheap cattle pasture. 

Stone fences are wider than wire fences and necessarily occupy more 
land. Stone-pile fence does not really deserve the name of fence. It 
functions as a fence only in being a barriei' to cultivation and in wasting 
land. In eai'ly times stone fences furnished a satisfactory way of getting 
rid of surplus stones; in the present day they ai-e serious barriei-s to the 
enlargement of fields, because of the expense of removing them. Good use 
has been made of some stone fences in the improvement of roads. Many 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



471 



stone fences, particularly in the soiitlieastern part of the State, are so wide 
and so high that the saving thru larger fields would not justify their removal 
unless the stones could be used for some such purpose. 

Stump and worm rail fences waste much land, harbor weeds and wood- 
chucks, and do not turn stock satisfactorily. Unless land is very cheap 
it will usually pay to replace such fences with wire. 

Brush and hedge fences (figs. 122 and 123) are the most wasteful of 
land of all fences found on the farms studied. Neither of these fences 




Fig. 122. an untrimmed hedge occupying a strip of land .3 rods wide where land 

IS worth $150 AN acre 

Every rod of this fence occupies nearly $3 worth of hind. The cost of clearing 60 rods of similar hedge 

on this farm was SO cents a rod 



has a place on any New York farm, but unfortunately both are expensive 
to eradicate. Hedge fences are expensive to trim, but more expensive 
to let go. They waste much land, harbor insect pests and woodchucks, 
and do not turn stock satisfactorily. On land worth $100 an acre, 
the land actually occupied on both sides of an average hedge fence 
would be worth 72 cents a rod. In addition to the land actually 
occupied, hedge fences injure the crop for a considerable distance on 
each side. 



472 



W. I. Myers 



^j 



Fir;. 123. a closely trimmed hedge 

Even closely trimniod hcducs ocriipy a wide strip of land. This hedge actvially makes untillable a strip 
of land 10 feet wide and injures the crop for some distance beyond this 

Proportion of farm area in fenced fields 
The proportion of farm area in fenced fields on the fifty-three farms 
inckided in this study, in its rehition to the size of the farms, is given in 
table 19. This taVjle shows a smaller proportion of crop area and of total 
fai'iii area in fenced fields on the smaller farms than on the larger one.s. The 
group of small farms includes a larger projjortion of fruit and crop farms 



TABLE 19. Relation of Size of Farms to Proportion of Farm Area in Fenced Fields 



Size of farms 
(acres) 


Num- 
ber of 
farms 


Average 
size of 
farms 

(acres) 


Per cent of area in fenced fields 


Crop 
land 


Pasture 
land 


Woods 

not 
pastured 


Total 


Less than 100 . . 


13 

20 
20 


7(i 2 
127.4 

282.6 


26 
34 
47 


100 
100 
100 


42 

38 
16 


39 


100-174 9. . . 


48 


175 or more 


64 






Total 


53 


'■'i73'4 


" "40 


' " 100 


23 




Averagi^ 


57 







An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



473 



on which little stock is kept. On such farms fenced fields are often 
unnecessary and undesirable. The proportion of crop and farm area 
in fenced fields in its relation to the number of acres to each cow, is 
as shown in table 20: 



TABLE 20. 



Relation of Number op Acres to Each Cow to Proportion of Crop 
AND Farm Area in Fenced Fields 



Number of acres 
to each cow 


Number 

of 

farms 


Average 
number 
of acres 
to each 
cow 


Average 

size 

of 

farms 

(acres) 


Average 

number 

of cows 

to the 

farm 


Per cent of area 
in fenced fields 


Crop 
land 


Farm 
area 


20 or more 


20 
12 
16 


40.4 

14.7 
7.1 


113.1 

277.6 
165.9 


2.8 
18.9 
23.5 


26 
40 
42 


31 


10-19 


63 


Less than 10 


63 






Total 


*48 


"'l2'5 


"l7L8 


"is;? 


"'36 




Average 


54 









* In this tabulation five farms were omitted because some sheep were kept in addition to the rows 



Relative advantages and disadvantages of fenced and unfenced crop fields 
The question of fencing crop fields is one of considerable importance 
to farmers. There are many advantages and Ukewise many disadvantages 
in this practice. If fields are fenced, the stock can be pastured earher 
in the spring and later in the fall than is otherwise possible, as well as in 
midsummer when permanent pastures are poor. Pasture is of the most 
value at these times, because it takes the place of barn feed. Cornfields 
can be pastured after the corn has been put into the silo; the scattered ears 
and stalks furnish a considerable amount of valuable feed. If seeding is 
done v/ith wheat, the oat stubble may be pastured. Even in a stubble 
field the grass in the fence rows furnishes some feed, while the pasturing 
saves mowing by hand. Old meadows can be pastured in the fall and 
spring before they are plowed for corn. Aftermath in meadows is fre- 
quently pastured. It furnishes feed when permanent pastures are usuall}^ 
poor. 

The disadvantages of fencing crop fields are also numerous. Fences 
prevent the adjustment of field lines to changed conditions. In going to 



474 



W. I. Myers 



a fenced field, it is necessary to go around to the gate. When fields are 
fenced thei'e is a tendency to turn stock on them at times when the crops 
and the land will be injured. Fence fines occupy a considerable area of 
land (figs. 124 and 125). In addition to the land that is left untilled, there 
is a waste in the crops that are injured along a fence by turning. The actual 
loss by fences is i^'obably double the figures given in table 18 (page 469). 
The cost of maintaining fences is an important item and it is rapidly be- 




FlG. 124. UNNECESSARY WASTE OF LAND BY FENCING 

Every rod of this fence wastes land worth $1, besides furnishing an ideal protection for weeds, brush, 
and woodchucks. Field fcncrs are unnecessary in this region since little stock is kept 



coming more important. The actual cost of maintenance varies with the 
type of fence. It was probably between 5 and 10 cents a rod a year on 
most farms in 1919, when this study was made. In unfenced fields the 
aftermath and stubble not pastured are not entirely wasted if left on the 
land, as th(\v serve as green manure and help to keep up the supply of 
hvunus. 

Th(^ value of the feed from meadows depends on the cost of the feed 
which it replacc^s. If it replaces ]iasture, its value is appi'oximately equal 
to the cost of pasture, usually about $1 to $2 a month for each cow. If 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



475 



it replaces barn feed its value is approximately the cost of barn feed, which 
is very much higher than the cost of pasture. 

Cost accounts were kept in 1916 and 1917 on forty of the farms included 
in these studies. On twenty of these the meadows were pastured to a 
greater or less extent. On eighteen farms of twenty-six which had ten 
or more units of stock other than horses to pasture, the permanent pasture 
was supplemented by pasturing meadows; of the other eight, one could 




Fig. 125. xtnfenced field lines which occupy no land and do not interfere with 

ci'ltivation 

On this farm little stock is kept and fenced crop ficldi arc both unnecessary and undesirable 



not pasture meadows because the soil was too sandy to hold gi'ass well, 
and three had large areas of very cheap permanent pasture but little crop 
land. The farmers who pastured their meadows secured an average 
amount of pasture equivalent to the pasture of twenty-one cows for one 
month. This was equivalent to about one-fifth of the total pasture on 
these farms. The extra fence necessary for the fenced crop fields on these 
farms, in addition to permanent pasture, boundary, and lane fence, aver- 
aged 285 rods for each farm. At 6 cents a rod the cost of maintaining this 
extra fence would be $17.10 a year. 



476 W. I. Myers 

Gates 

Gates should be placed where they will give the most convenient access 
to fields; usually this means as close to the corner of the field nearest the 
buildings as the natiu'c of the ground will permit. Where a gate is incon- 
veniently locatcnl, time or crops or both are wasted. On one of the farms 
studied, the gat(> to a 10-acre crop field fronting on the road was in the 
corner of the fence farthest from the buildings. This location made the 
distance from the barn to the field 27 rods longer, and every round trip to 
the field 54 rods longer, than if the gate had been in the nearest corner. 
With an average of six man trips and fourteen horse trips an acre in a year, 
about ten m;ui miles and twenty-four horse miles of unnecessary travel 
each year is required to farm this field with the present arrangement. 

The location of the gate is far more important than its construction. 
Farmstead gates which are opened and closed many times daily should be 
hinged so as to swing easily. Gates that swing both ways are preferable 
for such conditions. The weakest point in such gates, however, is the 
hinge, and therefore field gates are seldom hinged. The typical farm gate 
is the ordinary shde gate made of boards. This is easily built, cheap, 
and substantial. 

Cost offence maintenance 

The combination of the data obtained in these studies with the cost- 
accounting records kept by the farmers made it possible to compute the 
actual cost of upkeep of the fences on these farms. The i-ecords for 1914, 
1915, 1916, and 1917 were used, and all the farms were included each year 
for which sufficient data were available. A total of 1 05 records were obtained, 
representing forty-one farms. The data arc given in tables 21 and 22. 

The cost of work done in repairing and improving farm fences was 
obtained from the cost accounts. The actual hours of labor were taken 
from the work reports kept by farmers, and the cost per hour of man and 
horse labor is the actual farm cost for that year. Both labor and other 
costs of building new fence are included as upkeep costs, since with a 
number of farms it is a safe assumption that the new fence built in any 
year will approximat(>ly represent the normal necessary replacement. 
The labor data for mowing fence rows were obtained partly from the cost 
accounts and partly by estimates of the farmers. The cost per hour was 
taken from the cost accounts in each case. The amounts and cost of 
fencing, gates, posts, and other materials purchased, were taken from the 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



477 



cost accounts in each case. The amount of crop land occupied by fences 
was obtained from the data given in these studies. The value of the land 
occupied by fences was determined for each farm from the area of land 
actually occupied and the value of this land as given in the accounts. 
Rental at 5 per cent on the value of land occupied was included as part of 
the cost of maintaining fences. The number of posts cut from farm wood- 
lots, and their value before cutting, were obtained from estimates by the 
farmers. The labor of getting out and spUtting posts is included in the 
other labor on fences. 

In computing the amount of fence maintained to each farm, it has been 
assumed that each farmer maintains half of the boundary fence of his 
farm. Wliile not always true in individual cases, this should closely 
approximate the truth for a group of farms. All fences maintained by 
railroads, liighway fences maintained by the State, and stone-pile and brush 
fences, were deducted in determining the amount of fence maintained to 
each farm. The present farm value of each kind of fence was determined 
from estimates by the farmers. Interest at 5 per cent on the present value 
of fences was included as one of the costs of maintaining them. 



TABLE 21. 



Kinds, Amounts, and P"'arm Values op Fencing Maintained for Which 
THE Cost of Maintenance was Determined 



\ 


Total of 105 farm 
records 


Per farm record 


Average 

value 

per rod 

of 

fence 


Kind of fence 


Rods 


Value 


Rods 


Value 


Woven wire 


40,790 
45,896 
8,773 
8,719 
6,108 
4,372 
6,318 


$18,422.21 
11,288.81 
1 , 553 . 75 
1,(M6.19 
1,353.45 
1,011.18 
1,063.45 


388.5 
437.1 
83.6 
83.0 
58.2 
41.6 
60.2 


$175.45 
107.51 
14.80 
15.68 
12.89 
9.63 
10.13 


$0 45 


Barbed wire 


25 


Stone 


0.18 


Worm rail 


19 


Board 


22 


Straight rail ... 


23 


Other kinds of fencing 


0.17 


Total 


120,976 


$36,3.39.04 


1,152.2 


$346.09 









As shown in table 21, the average amount of fencing maintained to each 
farm was 1152 rods, or 3.6 miles, valued at 30 cents a rod. The average 
farm value of the fences in their present condition was $346.09 a farm, or 
about $2 an acre. 



478 



W. I. Myers 



TABLE 22. Cost of Maintaining Farm Fences on Forty-one New York Farms 
FOR THE Years 1914 to 1917, Inclusive 

(105 farm records, including 120,976 rods of fence) 





Total of 105 
farm records 


Per farm record 


Cost per 
rod of 
fence 
1 main- 
tained 


Item 


Amount 


Cost 


Amount 


Cost 


LalDor : 

Fence rei);iirs: 

Man labor 


7,414 hrs. 
2,536 hrs. 
2 , 536 hrs. 


$1,305.33 
396.36 
115.65' 


70.6 hrs. 
24.2 hrs. 


$12.43 
3.77 
1.10 




Horse labor 




Equipmi nt use 










Total 




$1,817.^4 

.$439.55 
132.58 
36.28 




$17.31 

.$4.19 
1.26 
0.34 


$0,015 


New fence: 

Man labor 


2,188 hr.s. 
743 hrs. 
743 hrs. 


20.8 hrs. 
7.1 lu-s. 




Horse labor 




Equipment use 








Total 




$608.41 

iW4.91 

28.20 

9.60 




.$5.79 

1H.24 
0.27 
0.09 


$0,005 


Mowing fence rows: 

Man labor 


2,405 hrs. 
190 hrs. 
190 hrs. 


22.9 hrs. 
1.8 hrs. 




Horse labor 




Equipment use 








Total 




W82.71 




$4.60 


$0.00i 










Total labor cost 




$2,908.46 




$27.70 


$0,024 










Materials purchased : 

Fence posts 


1,891 

1 , ()95 rods 

6,612 lbs. 

386 lbs. 

614 lbs. 


$246.17 

540.22 

253.33 

14.. 38 

29.75 

47.60 


18.0 

16.1 rods 
63.0 lbs. 

3.7 lbs. 

5.8 lbs. 


.$2.34 
5.14 
2.41 
0.14 
0.28 
0.45 


$0,002 


Woven wire 

Barbed wire 


0.004 
0.002 


Other wire 


0.0001 


Staples 


0002 


Lumber for gates 


0.0004 








Total cost of materials 




$1,131.45 




$10.77 


$0,009 










Other costs: 

Rental at 5 per cent on 
value of land occupied 
bv fences . . . 




$ 681.01 

385.98 

1,816.87 




$ 6.49 

3.68 

17.30 


$0,006 


Value, before cutting, of 
posts cut from farm 
woodlots 

Interest at 5 per cent on 
present farm value of 
fence maintained 


6,4.55 posts 


()1 .5 posts 


0.003 
0.015 










Total of other costs 




$2,883.86 




$27.47 


$0,024 










Entire total cost 




$6,923.77 




.$65.94 


.$0,057 











An Economic Study of Farm Layout 479 

The average cost of maintaining fences on these farms for the four 
years was 5.7 cents a rod. With 1919 prices this cost would be about 
doubled. The average costs by years for these farms are as follows: 

23 farms, 1914 5.8 cents a rod 

33 farms, 1915 5.7 cents a rod 

26 farms, 1916 5.5 cents a rod 

23 farms, 1917 5.9 cents a rod 

105 farm records, four years 5.7 cents a rod 

The variation on individual farms ranged from 2 to 12 cents a rod. 
Farm costs for any one year are greatly affected by the amount of fencing 
done in that year, but with a group of farms this factor is stabilized. 

The cost by the rod of maintaining fence depends on the kind of fence. 
On fifteen farms having 75 per cent of barbed wire fence and only 7 per 
cent of woven wire, the average cost of maintaining fence was 4.9 cents 
a rod. On seventeen farms having 70 per cent of woven wire fence and 
only 4 per cent of barbed wire, the average cost was 6.8 cents a rod. On 
twenty-one fai'ms having 26 per cent of woven wire fence and 28 per cent 
of liarbed wire, the average cost was 5.5 cents. 

Of the fences having posts, one post was used for every 12.3 rods of 
fence each year. Since posts are usually set about a rod apart, it appears 
that the posts lact about twelve years. 

FARM LANES AND DRIVEWAYS 

In this discussion the word lane designates a fenced private passageway 
which is primarily used to make pastiu'es accessible to buildings. Altho 
used for other purposes also, lanes are arranged chiefly to save time in 
getting stock to and from pasture. They are therefore necessarily fenced. 
The word drivewan is employed to designate the land primarily devoted 
to use as a passageway to crop fields. Driveways therefore need not be 
fenced. They may vary in location from year to year. Driveways are 
necessary on practically every farm, while lanes are not. 

Utility of lanes 

Whether or not lanes are needed, their width, and the area of land to 
be devoted to them, depend chiefly on the size of the farm, the shape 
of the farm, the area of crop land, the value of the farm land, and the 
amount of stock kept. 



480 W. I. Myers 

On the farms included in tliis study, 51.5 acres of land were devoted 
to farm lanes and driveways, or slightly less than an acre to each farm. 
Of this area 24.8 acres were in lanes wliich were pastured by stock, 13.1 
acres were in fenced driveways not pastured, and 13.6 acres were in 
unfenced driveways. The average width of lanes pastured was 39 feet, 
of fenced driveways 25 feet, and of unfenced driveways 11 feet. The 
fenced driveways were formerly used as lanes for stock. Since they 
are no longer necessary for this purpose, they waste a considerable area 
of land. Assuming the width of the unfenced driveways given above 
(11 feet) as necessary, the fenced driveways waste about 8 acres of land. 
Most of this could be reclaimed for crops at a reasonable cost. 

The larger farms included in this study had a smaller proportion of 
their area in lanes and driveways, than the smaller farms. The farms of 
less than 100 acres had 0.9 per cent of the farm area in lanes and 
driveways, wliile on farms of more than 175 acres 0.4 per cent of the 
farm area was used in this way. The corresponding proportions of the 
crop area were 1.2 per cent and 0.7 per cent, respectively. 

The shape of the farm is usually of more importance than its size in its 
effect on the proportion of the farm area necessary for lanes and driveways. 
Long, narrow farms, in addition to their other disadvantages, require 
much larger proportions of their areas for this use. On one farm a part 
only 440 feet wide had a necessary driveway 10 ioot wide thruout most 
of its length. As far back as the diiveway extcnitled it occupied about 
4 per cent of the crop land. This is in a region where land is worth about 
S150 an acre. The plan of this farm is shown in figure 99 (page 439). 
The long, narrow farm sho\vn in figure 96 (page 43()) has 1.6 per cent of 
its area in lanes and diiveways. Striking contrasts in this respect are 
presented in figures 105 (page 445) and 109 (page 449). The elongated 
farm has 1 per cent of its area in lanes and driveways, while the com- 
pact farm of the same size has only one-seventh as much land devoted 
to this purpose. 

The necessity for farm driveways depends somewhat also on the 
arrangement of i^ublic roads. Farms which are so divided by public 
roads that the fields are readily accessible, often need but few private 
driveways. However, public roads do not take the place of lanes for 
stock. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



481 




^vM^ 



°- 21.7 a ^'le.Z^. 



.n. 



The question as to whether or not a lane would be advantageous on a 
given farm depends on its cost and on the saving in labor that it would 
effect. If much stock is kept and the pasture is not adjacent to the 

buildings, a lane would usu- 

ally be justifiable. Part of 
the layout of a farm of 368 
acres is shown in figure 126. 
On this farm a lane connects 
the barns with the night pas- 
ture, but the cows are driven 
up the road to the day pas- 
1 vn-e. The distance from the 
Ixirnyard gate to the gate of 
the day pasture is 148 rods. 
Two round trips must be 
made daily with the fifty 
cows kept on this farm, tak- 
ing the cows to pasture in 
the morning and going after 
them at night. This makes 
the distance traveled daily 
neailytwo miles and the time 
consumed with a herd of tliis 
size an hour a day. The nor- 
mal pasture season on this 
farm is about 150 days, and 
this means 150 hours spent 
in driving cows. This work 
comes during the crop-grow- 
ing season, when time is most 
valuable. At 30 cents an 
hour the cost of driving cows 
would be $45 a year. 

A way in which this farm ^^ j26. plan of a central new york dairy 
might be rearranged with a farm, showing the present route to the day 
lane 4 rods wide running be- pasture 

, , . 1 Ti Since there is no lane to this pasture, the herd of fifty cows must 

tween neldS A and 13, con- be driven up the highway to and from this field each day 



wsr\ 



1 



1-/6 4^ 



T 






482 



W. I. M-iTERS 




Fig. 127. plan of the farm shown in figure 
120, illustrating how a lane could be run 
from the barnyard to the pasture, between 
fields a and b 

Such a lane would save much time, besides greatly lessening 
the danger of injury to the cattle by automobiles 



necting the barnyard with the 
day pasture, is shown in 
figure 127. Some grain is fed 
to the cows all summer on 
this farm, and with such a 
lane very few trips would be 
required to get the cows. 

A lane of this width would 
occupy 3.3 acres of crop land 
worth .S60 an acre. Interest 
at 6 per cent on 3.3 acres of 
$60 land would amount to 
$11.88 a year. This land 
would not be wasted but 
would furnish considerable 
pasture. The length of good 
fence necessary for fencing 
tliis lane would be 2G4 rods. 
The dilapidated stone wall 
more than half a rod wide 
wliich separates fields A and 
B would not make a satis- 
factory lane fence, and there- 
fore two new fences would 
be necessary. Since this lane 
would be used only by cattle, 
a four-strantl barbed wire 
fence would l^e satisfactory. 
The annual cost of maintain- 
ing such a fence in 1918 
would have been about $18. 
ITsing the figures given, the 
cost of land and fence for 
tliis lane would be about $30 
a year. In this case a lane 
would effect a saving above 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 483 

all costs of about $15 a year, besides furnishing some feed. It would also 
lessen danger of injury to cows by passing automobiles. If only one extra 
fence needed to be maintained, or if the pasture were used both night 
and day, the saving would be greater. 

Width of lanes 

Generally speaking, the width of a lane should be proportional to 
the number of cows using it. On the farms here under consideration, 
the average width of the lanes for herds of ten cows or less was 1.5 rods, 
for herds of from ten to twenty cows 2 rods, for herds of from twenty to 
thirt}'' cows 3 rods, and for herds of more than thirty cows 4 rods. Wide 
lanes have many advantages. There is less danger of injury to cows 
thru crowding, and because of less crowding the cost of maintaining 
fences is less. Narrow lanes afford practically no feed at any time. In 
wet weather they are converted into mud holes, with the result that 
the cows come out with muddy legs and udders. Wide lanes preclude 
these disadvantages and furnish a considerable quantity of feed. They 
are substantially elongations of the pasture. 

The proper width for a lane depends also on the character of the land, 
as well as on the number of cows using it. With wet land the lanes need 
to be wider in order to obviate mud holes. Undoi- ordinary conditions 
tlie average widths given in the preceding paragraph should be satisfactory. 
The lane to the night pasture shown in figure 126 has good proportions 
for average soil conditions. It is used by fifty cows and varies from 
4 to 5 rods in width. 

In spite of the advantages of wide lanes it is not always advisable to 
have them. On long, narrow farms, a lane wide enough to furnish feed 
may take up too large a proportion of the tillable land. Under such a 
condition it may be better to waste land in a narrow lane than to make 
it wide enough to furnish pasture. 

The location of most lanes is already fixed. New lanes should be so 
located that they run parallel to farm and field lines, in order not to 
make irregular fields. A poorly planned lane is shown in figure 128. 
Its direction was determined by the location of the buildings and the wet, 
untillable pasture at the back of the farm. Running the lane straight 
from the barns to this field, diagonal to the farm boundaries, made nec- 
essary many short rows on both sides. A peach orchard was planted 
with rows parallel to the lane, which made changing the lane difficult. 



484 



W. I. Myers 






/o. 03. 
9,93, 



I 




' • • ' 9 % \ 



• • • • 



o,zn* 



00 

o o/_ 5 ,7 3, o 

0000000 

o b o o o o o 
o o^-3»/ 3' o 
00000 00 



A/- 



5.7 a. 

5,63. 



O- 



//. /3. 

/o,7a. 




Fig. 128. farm plan showing a poorly laid out lane 

Till' hiiie was run from the building.s to the pasture at the back end of the farm, diagonal to the farm 
liouudaries. A peach orchard was later planted, with its rows parallel to the lane, making it difficult to 
clriiicf the lane. The diagonal course of this lane necessitated short rows and was the cause of much 

wasted lal.or 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



485 



This lack of foresight has aheady cost a considerable amount in farm- 
ing unnecessary short rows. 

On some farms with Httle stock, lanes are unnecessarily wide and thus 
waste valuable crop land. The plan of a western New York farm is 







lA'OOiJS At^O PASTuaC- 7 5 3 




I 



ki 



Fig. 129. plan of a western new tork fruit farm 
showing an unnecessary wide lane which occu- 
pies 1.2 acres of tillable land between fields 

F AND G 



shown in figure 129. The lane between fields F and G is between 3 and 
4 rods wide and occupies 1.2 acres of crop land worth $125 an acre. This 
lane leads to a pasture in a creek bottom, used for pasturing colts and 
heifers. It is too distant from the barns to be used for pasturing other 
stock. Two cows are kept for home use. A lane leads from the barns 



486 



W. I. Myers 



to the pasture used by the cows and the horses. A way in which the 
same farm could be rearranged with an unfenced driveway replacing 
the former wide lane is shown in figure 130. The wide lane is not needed 
for pasture. For the type of farming followed, there is ample pasture 








C^O^ LA^C> 



Fig. 130. plan illustrating how the unneces- 
sary LANE shown in FIGURE 129 COULD BE ELIM- 
INATED, SAVING AN ACRE OF GOOD LAND AND THE 
UPKEEP OF 150 RODS OF FENCE 

land which can hv used for nothing else. The ehmination of this lane 
would add about an acre of good land to the croj^ area and save the upkeep 
of 150 rods of fence. The saving would amount to about S15 or $20 a year. 
Even if the advantages of a lane in this case were sufficient to pay 
the cost of fence upkeep, the lane is too wide for the amount of stock 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 487 

kept. A lane of half this width would give ample room and save one-half 
of the land in the present lane. (3n a few farms having no permanent 
pasture, the lane is made wide enough to pasture the family cow until 
she can be turned out in the meadows, after haying. 

CROP LAND 

Crop land is the highest grade of farm land. The area adapted to crop 
production is relatively more limited than the area adapted to pasture 
and forestry. Crop land produces a greater net value of product to the 
acre than do other farm lands, and is therefore more valuable. For 
these reasons, all the land that can be economically worked under 
conditions existing at a given time is usually cropped at that time. 
Changing agricultural conditions affect both the amount and the quality 
of crop land. The change from hand labor to machine methods of 
production has reduced considerable areas of land in New York from crop 
land to pasture, since land that was not adapted to the use of machinery 
could no longer be economically cultivated. The opening-up of the rich 
lands of the Middle West had a similar effect in reducing crop land to 
pasture. 

There is a large amount of farm land in New York State which is 
adapted for use only as pastiu'c. If, therefore, land that can be economi- 
cally cropped is used as pasture land, it loses its advantage and competes 
directly with cheap land wliich is good only for pasture. For tliis reason, 
usually little stock is kept unless part of the land is suited only for pasture, 
and practicall}^ all of the land adapted to economic crop production is 
used for crops. 

To be suitable for crop growing, land must be not only adapted to 
cultivation by machinery but also reasonably fertile. Not all the land 
suitable for crop growing can be cultivated economically, however. Some 
of it may be so far from the buildings, or in such small, irregular fields, 
that farming it does not pay. A large part of the tillalole land now in 
permanent pasture is too far away to be worked to advantage by its 
present owners. Such land is frequently convenient to the farmstead of 
an adjoining farmer. Readjustments in ownership which would permit 
each farmer to work the land most convenient to his farmstead would 
increase the area of crop land as well as increase the efficiency of labor. 

The utilization of land in cropped fields on the farms studied is shown 
in table 23 : 



488 W. I. Myers 

TABLE 23. Land in Cropped Fields on 53 New York Farms 



Amount of land in cropped fields 

Land in cropped fields not producing a crop 

Fence rows 

Swampy land 

Streams 

Open ditches 

Driveways in crop fields 

Rough or steep laud 

Land shaded by woodlots 

Trees in fields 

Stone outcrops 

Barns in fields 

Stone piles 

Total crop land not producing a croj). 

Land in cropped fields producing a crop: 
Crops other than fruit: 
Not rotated : 

Permanent meadow 

Gardens, etc 

Total not rotated 

Rotated : 

General crops 

Truck crops 

Crop land sometimes pastured 

Total rotated 

Total crops other than fruit 

Fruit: 

Home and tenant orchards 

Commercial fruit: 

Bearing 

Not bearing 

Total commercial 

Total fruit 

Total area of all crops 

Total area of farms 



Total 
number 
of acres 



G, 076. 86 



Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 



114.66 



Per cent 
of total 

farm 

area 



66.12 



Per cent 
of total 
area of 
cropped 
fields 



100 00 



102. 2S 

30 34 

24 4C> 

12 66 

11.43 

11.27 

6.68 

5.25 

2.17 

2.15 

1.42 



210.11 



1.93 
57 
46 
24 
0.22 
21 
0.13 
0.10 
0.04 
04 
0.03 



3.96 



1.11 
0.33 
27 
0.14 
0.12 
0.12 
0.07 
0.06 
02 
02 
0.02 



2 29 



1.68 
0.50 
40 
0.21 
0.19 
0.19 
0.11 
09 
04 
04 
0.02 

3.46 



106.07 
28.70 



2.00 
0.54 



1.^.77 

4,417.06 

88 . 38 
645.85 



2.54 

83.34 

1.67 

12.19 



1.15 
0.31 

1.47 

48.06 
9() 
7.03 



5,151.29 



5,286.06 



97.19 
99.74 



56.05 



57.51 



44.76 

351.55 

184.38 



0.84 

6.63 
3.48 



0.49 

3.82 
2.01 



535.93 



10 11 



580.69 



10.96 



5.83 
6.32 



1.75 
0.47 

2.22 

72 69 

1 45 

10.63 

84.77 



86.99 



0.74 

5.79 
3.03 

8.82 



9.56 



5,866 75 
9,191 06 



110.69 
173 42 



63.83 
100 00 



96.54 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



489 



The proportion of land occupied by obstructions in fields devoted to 
crops other than fruit, on farms of different sizes, is shown in table 24. 
With fruit crops very little land is made untillable by fences, open ditches, 
streams, or other causes, and the inclusion of land devoted to fruit would 



TABLE 24. 



Relation of Size of Farms to Proportion of Area of Cropped Fields 
Occupied by Obstructions 



Size of fMrrn.'^ 



Less than 
100 acres 



100-174.9 
acres 



17-") acres 
or more 



All 
farms 



Per cent of area of cropped fields occupied by 
obstructions 



i< ence rows 

Swampy land 

Streams 

Open ditches 

Driveways in crop fields 

Rough or steep land 

Land shaded by woodlots 

Trees in fields 

Stone outcrops 

Barns in fields 

Stone piles 

Total land in cropped fields occupied by 

obstructions (not producing a crop). . . . 

Land in cropped fields producing a crop . . 



2.42 


0.87 


0.(33 


0.20 


0.49 


0.43 


0.18 


0.02 


0.16 


0.02 


0.02 


5.48 


94.52 



1.78 
0.92 
0.3S 
38 
23 
0.28 
0.09 
0.02 
0.01 
0.05 
0.02 



4.18 
95.82 



1.79 
0.31 
45 
0.16 
13 
0.08 
0.13 
0.15 
0.01 
0.04 
0.02 



3 25 

96 . 75 



1 84 
0.55 
44 
23 
20 
17 
13 
10 
03 
04 
03 



3 76 
96 24 



tend to obscure the effect of any factor on the proportion of crop land 
made untillable by these agents. The most important reason for the bet- 
ter utihzation of crop land on the larger farms is that a smaller propor- 
tion of the crop area is occupied by fences. The larger fields of the large 
farms require less fence to the acre, and therefore less land is occupied 
by fence rows. 

PASTURE LAND 

Pasture land is intermediate in grade between crop land and woodland. 
In some parts of the State there are considerable areas of land wliich 
cannot be economically tilled but on which bluegrass or other pasture 
plants thrive. Tliis land may be either too wet, too dry, too steep, too 



490 W. I. Myers 

stony, too distant, or of too heavy soil for economic crop production, 
or it may \x) bottom land subject to overflow. Such areas can generally 
be used best as ix^rmanent pasture. If the land is not suitable for pasture 
it should be put into a woodlot. 

In other parts of the State nearly all of the land is tillable and cr.n 
be farmed satisfactorily. Even in such regions there is some broken la:id 
along streams which can best be utilized as permanent pasture, but most 
of the tillable land is cropped. A few exceptional regions may be found 
where good tillable land is kept in pasture a large pai't of tlie time because 
it is peculiarly adapted to that pur})ose. (Jut side of these favored regions 
there is a tendency to keep Httle stock unless part of the land is suited 
only for pasture. In regions where practically all of the farm land is 
tillable, the farmers who keep stock often rotate pastures since l)y this 
practice more stock can be kept on a given area. Rotated pastures are 
usually better on light soils or with other conditions under which blue- 
grass tloes not thrive. 

The classification of jxisture k;nd on the fa,i-ms studied i; shown in 
tal)le 25. Pasture Ij.ud classified as " Tillal)l(' " includes all land ready 
for cultivation which is as good as the land now in crops. The amount 
under " Could be made till >J)le " includes land which at reasonable expense 
could 1);' m:id:' as good 1ill:'J)le land as that now under cultivation. In 
the case of " Woods ])astured," it would of course be necessary to clear 
the land of trees. 

Of the fifty-three farms here inchukxl, only three h^d no pasture land. 
All of these are located in western New York and ke})t little stock. Of 
the fifty farms having pasture, forty-five depended primarily on permanent 
pasture while five dej^nKled principally on rotated pasture. Nine of the 
forty-five fai-ms depending primarily on permanent pasture supplemented 
this by some rotated jxisture. .Ml excej^t one of these nine farms were 
intensive dairy farms. They had an average of 22.8 acres of rotated 
pasture, 92.3 acres of permanent pasture, and oO.o cattle units, to each 
farm. Of the five farms depending primarily on rotated pasture, only 
two had more th;ui six cows. They liad an average of 18.1 acres of 
rotated pasture and 2.9 acres of permanent pasture to each farm. 

The total pasture area occupied aliout 30 per cent of the area of these 
fifty-three farms, or ')l.[) acres per farm. The 881.49 acres of woodland 
pasture was estimatetl l^y these farmers to fui'nish feed equivalent to 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 491 

TABLE 25. Cla-;-ification of Pasture Land on Fifty-thrse New York Farms 



• 


Total 
number 
of acres 


Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 


Per cent 
of total 

farm 

area 


Per cent 

of total 

pasture 

area 


Permanent pasture: 
Cleared : 
Tillable: 
Lanes . . 


17.46 
200. 4G 


0.33 

3.78 


0.19 
2.18 


63 


Other land 


7 29 






Total tillable 


217.92 

G.20 
840.31 


4.11 

0.12 
15.85 


2.37 

0.07 
9.14 


7 92 


Could be made tillable: 

Lanes 


23 


Other land 


30 54 






Total which could be made till:',bl ■ 
Not tillable 


846.51 
542.37 


15.97 
10.23 


9.21 
5.90 


30. 76 
19 71 






Total cleared 


1,606.80 


30.32 


17.48 


58 39 






Woods pastured: 

Tillable if cleared 


395.79 

89.83 
395.87 


7.47 
1.69 
7.47 


4.31 
0.98 
4.31 


14 38 


Could be made tillable 


3 26 


Not tillable 


14 39 






Total woods pnsiured 


881.49 


16.63 


9 . 59 


32.04 


Area of cleared pasture to which woods 
pastured is equivalent 


176.44 


3.33 










Total permanent pasture 


2,488.29 


46.95 


27 07 


90.43 


Crop land temporarily pastured 


233.33 


4.97 


2.87 


9 57 






Total pasture area 


2.751.62 


51.92 


29.94 


100.00 


Area of cleared pasture to which totsA pasture 
is equivalent 


2,046.57 


38.61 


22.27 


74 . 38 






Total farm area 


9,191.06 


173.42 


100.00 









176.44 acres of cleared pasture. The 51.9 acres of all pasture per farm 
was thus equivalent to 38.6 aci'es of cleared pasture, or 2.3 acres of cleared 
pasture for each cattle unit on these farms. Permanent pasture made 
up 90 per cent of the total pasture area. About two-thirds of the area 



492 W. I. Myers 

of the permanent pasture was cleared, l)ut since it took al^out 5 acres 
of woods pasture to furnish as much feed as 1 acre of cleared pasture, 
the latter furnished about 90 per cent of the feed. Only a small part, 
one-seventh, of the cleared permanent pasture was then tillable, but 
more could be made tillable at reasonable expense. If conditions war- 
ranted, about two-thirds of the cleared permanent pasture land on these 
farms could be used for producing crops. 

In general the selection of the pasture land on these farms followed 
the principles already discussed. The greater part of the pasture land 
was not adapted to crop production. In some cases this untillable pasture 
was supplemented by small areas of rotated pasture, consisting usually 
of the remoter crop fields. In general, the farms that had little or no 
untillable land kept little stock. 

The location of the pastures on most farms is determined by the char- 
acter of the land. Land that is not suited to crop production is used for 
pasture, whatever its location. Where the land of a farm is uniform and 
choice is possible, it is usually best to pasture the land that is remotest 
from the buildings. Long experience has proved that this plan is usually 
the best. The moi-e conveniently located fields are worth more for 
cultivation, and labor is saved l)y jiasturing the fields which cannot be 
farmed as advantageously. Distance from Iniildings is less important 
with pasture than witli crop land, for where llie barns and the pasture 
are connected l)y a lane the stock do most of the traveling. It is very 
advantageous, however, to have a night pasture convenient to the build- 
ings. Altho this need not be as large as the day pasture, it should be 
large enough to furnish some feed. 

Aside from interest and taxes, the principal cost in the upkeep of 
pastures is the cost of maintaining fences. Since the amount of fence 
to the acre is affected by both the size and the shape of the field, these 
factors are of some importance. The relation of the size of the field to 
the cost of fence maintenance is shown in table 26. Assuming that the 
costs of maintaining all pasture fence are chargeable to the pastures, at 
cents a rod the cost of maintaining the fences around the 2-acre j:)astures 
in table 2(3 would be $2.45 an acre. This is as much as the usual rent of 
land worth $40 an acre. A consideral)le proportion of pasture land is 
worth only $20 or .$25 an acre. Because of this, in regions where land 
is cheap small patches are often seen lying idle. On the basis of the 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 493 

TABLE 26. Relation of Size of Pastures to Economy of Fencing 



Size of pasture fields 
(acres) 


Number 

of 

fields 


Average 
size of 
fields 
(acres) 


Rods of 

fence 

to the 

acre 


Annual 

cost of 

fence 

maintenance 

per acre 

at 6 cents 

a rod 


Less than 4 


29 
25 
12 
12 
12 
17 
13 


2.07 
5.75 
9.75 
14.02 
19.72 
36.03 
84.46 


40.8 
25.2 
19.0 
19.2 
13.6 
10.6 
6.4 


$2.45 


4-7.9 


1.51 


8-1L9 


1.14 


12-15.9 


1.15 


16-23.9 


0.82 


24-49.9 


0.64 


50 or more 


38 






Total ... 


120 


'26!36 


""ii!8 




Average 


$0.71 



difference in cost of maintaining fences, the 84-acre pastures would be 
worth about $35 an acre more than the 2-acre pastures, since it costs 
$2.07 an acre less each year to keep the large pastures fenced. For 
these reasons, land that is to be pastured should be arranged in as large 
fields as possible. Usually part of the pasture fence is line fence, half 
of which is maintained by neighbors, and part may serve other purposes. 
An ideal pasture would be square, but the utilization of the different 
grades of farm land for the purposes to which each grade is best adapted 
is far more important than shaj^e of the pasture. This factor, not 
economy of fencing, usually determines the shape of pasture fields. 

WOODLAND 

Woodland is the lowest grade of farm land. There are large areas in 
the country which are too steep or too remote, or on which the soil is too 
rocky or too poor, to produce economically any other crop than woods. 
To utilize land that is suitable for higher uses as woodland, is to put it 
in direct competition with the large areas which are suited only to timber 
production and on which timber can be produced at much lower cost. 
For these reasons farm woodlots should be located on land that is too 
rough, too steep, too poor, or too remote to be used economically for 
crop production or for pasture. 



494 W. I. Myers 

Much of the farm land of the State was originally cleared without 
due reference to topography or to the character of the soil. As a result 
many woodlots occupy level, rich, tillable land, while poor, barren hillsides, 
too steep for crops or even for good pasture, \veYe cleared. In order to 
correct these mistakes in clearing, some readjustments were necessary. 
It did not take many years of experience to determine that some land 
had been cleared l)v mistake. Part of this Lind has already gone back 
into forest. More shoidd go. On the other hand, the increasing scarcity 
of good lantl as reflected in higher prices has stimulated the clearing of 
some of the woodlots on the highest-priced land. As time goes on, this 
process may be expected to continue. 

The proportion of woodland on the farms studied, and the purposes to 
which it is adapted, in the opinion of the writer, are shown in table 27. 
The woodland classed as '' Tillal)k' if cleared " would be approximately 
as good land as that now under cultivation. Woodland classed as ''Could 
be made tillable " includes land which, after clearing, could be made 
tillable at reasonable expense either ))y drainage, by clearing of stone, or 
by other means. Woodland not tillable is divided into two classes, that 
which would make good pasture after clearing and that which is suited 
oidy for woodland. 

Of the fifty-three farms includetl in this study, forty-three, or about 
four-fifths of the total, had woodlots. A larger proportion of the large 
farms had woodland. Of thirteen farms containing less than 100 acres, 
eight had woodlots; wliile of twenty containing more than 175 acres, 
all except one had some woodland. The average area of woodland per 
farm was 21.() acres, or about 12 p(>r cent of the farm area. The proportion 
of the farm area in woodland is less on the smaller farms tlian on the 
larger farms. On the smaller fainis land is g(>nci'a,lly too scarce to be used 
for forestr,y jourposes. 

About half of the woodland on these farms, if cleared, would make 
as good tillable land as that now under cultivation, without additional 
expense. In addition to this, about one-seventh of the area of woodland 
could be made tillable at reasonalile expense, after clearing. Most of 
the remaining woodland would make good pasture land if cleai-ed. About 
10 ppr cent of the total area of wootUand on these farms is suited only 
for timber production. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 
TABLE 27. Classification of Woodland on Fifty-three New York Farms 



495 





Total 
number 
of acres 


Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 


Per cent 
of total 

farm 

area 


Per cent 

of total 

woodland 

area 


Woodland pastured: 

Tillable if cleared 


395.79 
89.83 

297.09 

98. 7S 


7.47 
1.69 

5.61 
1.86 


4.31 
0.98 

3.23 
1.07 


34 64 


Could be made tillable 


7 86 


Not tillable: 

Suitable for pasture 


26 00 


Suitable only for woodland 


8 65 






Total not tillable 


395.87 


7.47 


4.31 


34 65 






Total woodland pastured 


881.49 


16.63 


9.59 


77 15 






Woodland not pastured: 

Tillable if cleared 


151.89 
r>4.33 

22.30 
22.58 


2.87 
1.21 

0.42 
0.43 


1.65 
0.70 

0.24 
0.25 


13 2!) 


Could be made tillable 


5 63 


Not tillable: 

Suitable for pasture 

Suitable only for woodland 


1 95 

1 98 






Total not tillable 


44.88 


0.85 


0.49 


3 93 






Total woodland not pastured 


2(U . 10 


4.93 


2.84 


22.85 


All woodland: 

Tillable if cleared 


547.68 
154.16 

319.39 
121.36 


10.33 
2.91 

6.03 
2 '^9 


5.96 
1.6S 

3.48 
1.32 


47 93 


Could be made tillable 

Not tillable: 

Suitable for pasture 


13.49 
27 95 


Suitable onlj' for woodland 


10 62 






Total not tillable 


440.75 


8.32 


4.80 


38 57 






Total woodland area 


1,142.59 


21.56 


12.43 


100 00 






Total farm area 


9,191.06 


173.42 


100.00 









It should not be inferred from this that all of the woodland suited to 
crops or pasture should be cleared at once. Some of it should never be 
cleared. In deciding whether to cut or to leave a woodlot, the most 
important considerations are the value of the land for other purposes, and 
the kind of timber in the woodlot. Where land is moderately high in 
price it will seldom pay to leave good level tillable land in woods. ITsually 
it will be best to cut the timber and gradually clear such land. It seldom 



496 W. I. Myers 

pays to reforest land woi'th more than $10 an acre, but it may pay to 
leave a growing stand of valuable timber until maturity on land worth 
more. Practically all of the farm land in New York State which will 
make good crop or pasture land is too valuable to be used for commercial 
timber production. 

Farm woodlots are often justified on land that is too valuable for 
commercial forestry purposes. In producing fence posts, firewood, and 
lumber for home use, a farmer is saving himself the retail prices of these 
products. In selling lumber he must sell on a wholesale market. The 
saving between the retail and the wholesale prices of these products, and 
the saving in ha.uling both ways, will pay the interest on higher-priced 
land. 

A few woodlots have value as windbreaks. While less important in 
New York State than on the western plains, a windbreak is very desirable 
for buildings located in an exposed position. This consideration is 
negligibU^ on most farms, however, as the woodlots are not usually located 
so as to be of any use for this purpose. On the other hand, woodlots 
frequently injure adjacent crop land ])y their shade or by keeping the 
land too wet. The width of the strip of land wasted because of proximity 
to woodlots varies from 1 to 4 rods. On the farms included in this study, 
al:)out 7 a.eres of crop land in fields adjacent to woodlots was thus wasted. 
This iiicica,ses somewhat the expense of maintaining woodlots. 

Most fai-ms have more woodland than is needed for home u-se, and 
much of tliis woodland has little or no valuable timber. Where such 
land is suited to ci-ops or pasture, it will usually pay to cut the timber 
in order that the land may be used for the purpose which pays best. 
Pasture is a more valuable crop than timber, and the returns from pasture 
are not so long deferred. 

On these farms an average of 11.8 rods of fence was required to 
inclose an acre of pasture (tal)le 2(), page 493), and the annual cost of 
fence maintenance, at 6 cents a rod, would therefore be 71 cents an acre. 
If 2 acres of pasture will support a cow for the pasture season, and if 
the value of her pasture is $10, the returns from an acre will pay for fence 
maintenance, taxes, and interest at 6 per cent on a value of al)out $60 
an acre. On the same basis, if 3 acres of pasture are needed to support 
a cow, the land is wortli about $37 an acre as pasture; if 4 acres are needed 
for each cow, the land is worth $25 an acre; and if 5 acres are needed for 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 497 

each cow, the land is worth $18 an acre. If more than 5 acres are needed 
to support a cow, it may be worth while to consider the possibilities of 
the land if it is allowed to remain in forest. 

After the owner has decided to clear a woodlot, the question arises 
as to whether it should be cleared at once or pastured until the stumps 
rot. In deciding tliis point, it is necessary to consider how great is the 
need for the land, how good pasture it will make, the cost of clearing, 
and how near the land is to the buildings. (3ften, if land is needed at once, 
cleared land can be bought more cheaply than woodland can be cleared. 
Clearing land at once puts today's high-priced labor in competition with 
the cheaper labor of the past, when most of the land was cleared. Usually 
pasture land is needed, and such cut-over land can be pastured to good 
advantage until the stumps rot. This usually requires from ten to twenty 
years and then the land can be cleared cheaply. 

About four-fifths of the woodland on the farms studied was pastured. 
Most of the woodland which was not pastured was either not convenient 
for pasturing or not worth pasturing. Undoubtedly pasturing injures 
woodlots to some extent. Where land is worth $20 or more an acre as 
pasture, the more important question is as to whether woods should be 
allowed in the pasture. Five acres of woodland pasture was considered 
equivalent to one acre of cleared pasture on these farms. It is well to 
have some trees in a pasture, to provide shade. Pasture in open woods 
is often as good as cleared pasture. It may be possible to produce wood 
and posts for home use by this arrangement without serious injury to 
the pasture. 

The plan of a western New York farm is shown in figure 131. The 
location of the woodlot V, on level, tillable land near the buildings, is 
typical of many farms. Such laud is too valuable for forestry purposes. 
Cleared tillable land in this region is worth $100 or more an acre. While 
this large area of level, tillable land has been left in woods, many fields 
far from the buildings have been cropped. Field R, which has been 
cropped regularly, is 188 rods farther from the buildings than woodlot V. 
For general farm purposes, with 1918 labor prices, field V would be worth 
from $30 to .$35 an acre more than field R, on the basis of location alone. 
It is also better land. Field R is but a few rods from a neighbor's barn, 
but it is 234 rods away, uphill, from the barn of the man who farms it. 



498 



W. I. Myers 




A.N Economic Study of Farm Layout 



499 



The plan of another western New 
York farm having a woodlot located 
on good tillable land is shown in 
figure 132. On this farm the wood- 
land is being gradually cleared for 
cultivation as opportunity offers. In 
this case the land is being cleared at 
once, without waiting for the stumps 
to rot. During 1916 and 1917 about 
two acres of land on the north and 
east sides of the woodlot were added 
to the cultivated area. In a few years 
the entire woodlot will be cleared and 
under cultivation. Crop land here is 
worth $125 an acre. 

These readjustments in the utili- 
zation of woodland will not come 
in a day. In addition to the owner 
of the farm shown in figure 132, 
four other farmers out of the forty- 
three having woodlot s have definitely 
planned to clear them for cultivation. 
On some of these farms the timber has 
already been cut. On most of them 
the stump lots will be pastured for a 
term of years before final clearing. 
The farmers having high-priced land 
are naturally the first ones to begin 
clearing woodland. The present high 
price for firewood is enabling some 
farmers to make wages cutting wood- 
land which has no valuable timber, 
and so is stimulating the process. As 
population increases and the conse- 
quent scarcity of land relative to popu- 
lation is reflected in higher land i)rices, 
the area of crop land in New York will 
be considerably increased in this way. 




Fig. 132. another uneconomic wood- 
lot OCCUPYING TILLABLE LAND TOO 
VALUABLE FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION 

This woodlot is being gradually cleared for 
cultivation, the work being done in slack periods. 
Nearly all of this farm south of the road was 
originally swampy pasture. It was reclaimed 
for cultivation by a complete .system of tile 
drains. ( )nly valuable crop land would be worth 
reclaiming at such expense. Small fields are nec- 
essary on this farm as the land is largely devoted 
to truck crops 

Farm area, 10S.4 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 4 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 52 rods 



500 



W. I. Myers 



^ / 




L... 



PUBLIC HIGHWAYS 

In most parts of New York State the owner of a farm holds title to 
the land in the adjacent highway, the only right of the public to the 
latter being the right to its free and uninterrupted use for highway purposes. 

The area of a farm as given 
in the deed therefore usually 
includes the area of all roads 
running thru the farm and 
one-half the area of roads 
bounding the farm. While 
land in highwa.ys is techni- 
cally owned by the owners of 
adjacent farms, little of this 
land is used for producing 
crops and so it adds nothing 
directly to the farm income. 
However, the importance of 
good roads is so great in eco- 
nomic farm operation that the 
land necessarily occupied by 
good, well-planned roads is 
one of the most valuable 
assets of a farm. 

In that part of the State 
which was settled last, much 
of the land was laid out in 
squares, with straight roads 
in so far as topography per- 
mitted. Since this section is 
relatively level, the highways 
as a rule are straight. In the 
eastern and southeastern 
parts of the State, which were settled first, the roads were not planned, but 
developed, like the farm layoilts, largely by chance. In general the roads 
tend to follow the topography of the land, avoiding the steepest grades. 
Even where there are no grades to avoid, many of the highways are 
crooked (rtg. 133). The most serious effect of these crooked roads on farm 



Fig. 133. plan of a southern new york farm 

The crooked hiRhways which cross this farm not only occupy 
much hind but also cause the irregular shape of several of 
the fields. The area of the right of way of the highway is 
5.1 per cent of the farm area. Part of the roadside is cropped, 
the area of the highway not in crops being 3.7 per cent of 
the farm area 

Farm area, 72.7 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 0.5 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 35 rods 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



501 



layout is that they divide many farms into irregularly shaped parts which 
are inconvenient to work and difficult to fence. 

The amount of land in highways on the farms studied is shown in table 
28. The average area of highways per farm was 3.13 acres, or 1.8 per 
cent of the total farm area. Apparently size of farm has Httle effect on 
the proportion of the area in highways. On farms of less than 100 acres 



TABLE 28. Land in Highways on Fifty-three New York Farms 





Total 
number 
of acres 


Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 


Per cent 
of total 

farm 

area 


Per cent 
of area 
of legal 
right of 
way of 
highways 


Land in highways not cropped 


144.75 


2.73 


1.57 


87.19 


Land in highways cropped: 

General crops 


16.57 
4.69 


0.31 
0.09 


0.18 
0.05 


9 98 


Apple trees 


2 83 






Total land in highways cropped 


21.26 


0.40 


0.23 


12 81 


Total land in highways 


166,01 


3.13 


1.81 


100 00 


Total farm area 


9,191.06 


173.42 


100.00 









the proportion of the farm area in legal right of way of highways was 
1.8 per cent, on farms between 100 and 175 acres in size it was 2.1 per 
cent, and on farms of more than 175 acres it was 1.7 per cent. There 
was considerable variation for the different farms, the proportions varying 
from 0.4 to 5.1 per cent. In the purchase of a farm the proportion of the 
area occupied by roads is of some importance, as every acre so used 
reduces by that amount the productive area of the farm. 

About one-eighth of the total area of highways on these farms was 
producing crops. In a few cases apple trees were planted along the 
highway, thus utilizing land that would otherwise have produced only 
weeds. The principal disadvantages of this way of utilizing roadsides 
is the inconvenience of spraying and taking care of a single row of trees. 
Further, while the fruit as well as the land belongs to the farmer as much 
as does any crop on his farm, he will probably harvest a smaller proportion 



502 



W. I. Myers 



of it because of its convenience to travelers. The greater part of the 
area of the roadside cropped on these farms was in general crops. On 
some farms road fences were not maintained and the fields were tilled 
to the road ditch, all the land not actually occupied by the road being 
thus utilized. 

The usual width of a country highway in New York is 3 rods, but 
occasional highways are 4 or even 5 rods wide. The public has the right 
to free and uninterrupted use for highway purposes of such a proportion 




Fig. \'M. a stone row which renders iseeess an acre of land worth SlOO 
By clearing away these ^^tones a strip of Innd L' rods widi' eould l)e added to tlie adjoining field 



of this land as is necessary for the traffic. The actual width of a well- 
graded dirt road is very seldom more than H rods, while the width of 
macadam roads is usually less than 2 rods. The traveled area of many 
countiy roads is less than 1 rod in width. Where the roads are fenced, 
the balance of the right of way is usually covered with grass, weeds, and 
brush. The state highway law requires each property owner to mow 
his roadsides twice each year. They are usually mowed once, but the 
hay obtained is dusty and of very poor ciuality. Most farmers would 
be ghid if some one would mow their roadsides for the hay. In other 
words, the I'oadsides of most farms are worse than merely useless, since 
constant expense is necessary to keep the weeds down. Road fences are 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 503 

no longer obligatory in New York, as stock running loose on the highway 
is regarded as trespassing. Consequently, where road fences are unnec- 
essary, their removal would result in a twofold saving. Not only would 
a considerable area be added to the crop land, but the labor of mowing 
roadsides would be saved (figs. 134 and 135). Such a change would not 
interfere in an}- way with the usefulness of the i-oads as highways and 
would improve the appearance of the roadsides. Certainly a road 




Fig. 135. where road fences are unnecessary their removal permits farming to 

the road ditch 

This road occupies less than a rod of land 

bordered by well-cared-for crops presents a far more attractive appearance 
than one bordered by brush and weeds. 

On these farms about 21 acres have already been added to the crop 
area by reclaiming useless roadsides. By eliminating unnecessary road 
fences about 30 acres more could be added to the land in crops. The 
width of the strip of land gained depends on the width of the road and 
the topography of the land. Where the road is of ordinary width and 
is not bordered by steep banks, a strip of land fi'om I to 1 rod wide can 
usually be added to the crop land on each side. 



504 W. I. Myers 

The question of fencing roadsides depends primarily on the stock 
kept on the farm. It is of course necessary to fence pastures bordering 
on the road, and where much stock is kept it is frequently profitable to 
fence some crop fields in order to pasture the aftermath. In New York 
it seldom j)ays to fence against stock driven along the road. The average 
length of roadside on these farms was 324 rods, 62 per cent of which 
was fenced. The proportion of roadside fenced varied for all the farms, 
from 52 per cent on the farms of less than 100 acres, to 72 per cent on 
farms of more than 240 acres. Many road fences are barriers only to 
cultivation, being of no use whatever in turning stray stock. Where 
such useless or unnecessary fences can be removed at a reasonable cost, 
the double saving of land and labor will usually justify the expense. 

THE FARMSTEAD 

The farmstead, as the term is here used, is that part of the farm which 
is occupied by the main group of farm buildings, together with any 
adjoining yards or paddocks, the home orchards, and the home garden. 
A part of the area of every farm must be devoted to these purposes, the 
size of the necessary area depending on the size of the farm, the type 
of farming, and other factors. Aside from the orchard, the garden, and 
the paddoclcs, every acre devoted to use as farmstead reduces by that 
amount the productive area of the farm. Land necessarily occupied by 
well-planned buildings is usefully employed and adds to the value of the 
farm. Since the farmstead usually occupies the best tillable land, it is 
essential that it be well planned in order to make the best use of land 
as well as of labor. 

The location of the farmstead with reference to fields has already 
been discussed. The ideal location for a fai-mstead is on a public road in 
the centei' of the crop area. With farms of small or moderate size it is 
best to locate the farmstead as near the center of the crop land as it can 
be placed and still he on the road. With very large farms the importance 
of saving labor in travel to and from fields is so great that it is best to 
locate the farmstead at the center of the farm. 

While it is advantageous to have reasonably close neighbors, it is not 
usually preferable to have them directly across the road. The neighbor's 
children, dogs, and chickens will give less trouble if the houses are some 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 505 

distance apart. It is a distinct advantage to own and control both sides 
of the road. 

The ideal location for a farmstead is on a slight elevation, sufficient to 
give good drainage but not enough to make hauling difficult. Altho less 
important in New York than in the West, it is advisable to have the 
farmstead sheltered from strong prevailing winds by a windbreak. 

Frequently the buildings of a farmstead are on both sides of the road, 
the house being on one side and the barns on the other. This arrangement 
is usually bad. There is great danger of injury to persons and stock by 
automobiles running between the house and the barn. The barns and 
the necessary implements near by do not make an attractive view either 
from the front windows of the house or from the road. The house should 
be located far enough from the road to escape the dust but not far enough 
to make too large a lawn. The distance from the house to the edge of 
the road on the farms studied varied from 30 to 160 feet, averaging about 
65 feet. Where the distance was greater than 100 feet the lawns were 
not usually well kept. The best location for the barn is at a convenient 
distance behind the house. With such an arrangement the piles of 
lumber and the necessary tools can be kept out of sight from the road, 
and this location is preferable from every point of view. 

The utilization of the land in farmsteads on the farms included in this 
study is shown in table 29. The average size of the garden area included 
in the farmsteads of these farms was about one-third of an acre to each 
farm. Three farms had gardens in crop fields which were not included 
in the table. Including these, the area of garden to each farm was about 
0.4 acre. Forty-seven out of fifty-three farms had gardens large enough 
to be recognized as such. Of the six farms having no garden, three were 
truck farms and hence needed none. In addition to the definite garden 
area, most farmers grew potatoes in the crop fields for home use. 

The farm garden should be one of the most profitable enterprises on 
a farm. By proper arrangement, little more time is required to take 
care of the garden than to take care of a similar area in potatoes or corn. 
Since garden work conflicts with work on crops, the garden should be 
arranged to save labor. It should be located near the house for convenience 
in working. The area necessary depends on the size of the family. In 
this study, on the farms where the family consisted of the equivalent of 
three adults the average size of garden was 0.3 acre; on those where 



oOG 



W. I. Myers 



the family consisted of the equivalent of more than three but less than 
five adults, the average size of garden was 0.4 acre; and on those where 
the family consisted of the equivalent of five or more adults, the average 
size of garden was 0.6 acre. This is an average of about 0.1 acre of 
garden to each adult person or equivalent. 



TABLE 29. Land in Farmsteads on Fifty-three New York Farms 



- 


Total 
number 
of acres 


Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 


Per cent 
of total 

farm 

area 


Per cent 

of total 

farmstead 

area 


Farmstead crops: 
Home garden: 


1.5.98 
2.35 


0.30 
0.04 


0.17 


9.80 












18.. 33 

40.54 
2.90 


0.35 

0.76 
0.05 


0.44 
0.03 




Home orchard: 

Apple 


24.87 


Mixed fruit 


1.78 






Total home orchard 


43.44 

2.63 

12.09 
17.10 


0.82 

0.05 

0.24 
0.32 


0.47 
0.03 
0.14 


26.65 


Other farmstead crops . . 


1.61 


Pasture : 

Paddock 


7.78 


Pasture in orchard 








Total farmstead pasture 


29.85 


. 56 








Land occupied by buildings, lawns, barn- 
yards, drives, etc 


88 . 28 


1.67 


0.96 


54.15 


Total farmstead area (less double cropping) 


163.02 


3.08 


1.77 


100.00 


Total farm area 


9,191.06 


173.42 


100.00 









The average size of home orchards was about 0.8 acre to each farm. 
Thirty-two farms out of the fifty-three had separate home orchards. Of 
the twenty-one farms not having home orchards, nineteen had commercial 
orchards from which fruit for home use was obtained, and the other two 
were in regions where apples do not thrive. The average area of home 
orchards for the farms having such orchards was 1.36 acres. More than 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 507 

90 per cent of the area of home orchards was in apples, the remainder 
being devoted to mixed fruits. 

The average area in paddocks for all farms was 0.24 acre. Only eleven 
farms out of the fifty-three had such farmstead pastures, and the average 
area of paddocks for these farms was 1.15 acres. Barnyards which 
afforded no pasture were not included in this classification, but were 
considered as land occupied by buildings and yards. In lieu of other 
paddocks, eight farms used the home orchards for this purpose, this 
being an average of about 2.15 acres for these farms, or 0.32 acre for all 
the fifty-three farms. All the farms pasturing orchards were located in 
regions where apples are a very uncertain crop. By pasturing such 
orchards some return is secured every year, and occasionally some apples 
are obtained in addition. Where hogs or cattle are kept it is advantageous 
to have small paddocks or pastures close to the buildings. These may 
be used for calf, hog, bull, or horse pastures, as the case may require. If 
land is not too limited, the saving in labor effected by the use of such 
pastures will often amount to good rental for the land so used. 

The area of land occupied by buildings and yards averaged 1.67 acres 
to each farm (table 30). This included the lawns and barnyards as well 
as the actual building sites. The lawns on these farms ranged from 
nothing up to about one-half acre. A few farmers had their gardens in 
their front yards. Lawns more than half an acre in size are seldom found 
on the farms of men who make their living from the soil. 

Far more important than the waste of good land is the fact that a 
large area of land occupied by buildings usually indicates scattered 
buildings and a resulting waste of labor in doing work. The plan of a 
farmstead with scattered buildings, requiring nuich unnecessary travel, 
is shown in figure 136. Several hundred miles of walking would be saved 
every year with well-arranged, concentrated buildings. Altho fire risk 
is somewhat greater, fire insurance is cheaper than wasted labor and 
materials in scattered, inconvenient buildings. The barns must be at least 
100 feet from the house if the lowest insurance rates are to be obtained. 
This is usually far enough so that unpleasant barn odors may be avoided, 
and any increase in distance beyond this sacrifices some labor. On the 
farms studied, the average distance from the house to the nearest door 
of the horse barn was about 130 feet and to the nearest door of the cow 
barn about 200 feet. 



508 



W. I INIyers 



TARLK aO. Uel-vtion of Size of F.vkms; to Area and PRoroRTiox of Land in 

F.UiMSTEAD 





."^izo of farms \!ioros) 




Loss 

than 

UHl 


UX> 

to 
174.0 


17.". 

or 

nioro 


.\11 

farni.-i 


than 
UH> 


100 

to 

174.0 


17.". 

or 

more 


All 

farms 






.\oros p 


or farm 




I 


'or oont o 


farm aro 


I 


Fiirmstcad oiops: 
Homo sarxlon: 

Soparato i;arvloi\ 

Oanion in orohan.1 . . . 


0.-21 
. 0:^ 


O.3.". 
0.0'. 


0.31 
0.02 


0.30 
0.0,". 


0.28 


0.27 


0.11 


0.17 


Total homo snuxlon. 

Homo oroharvl: 

App'.- 


O.l'it 

0.-^7 
O.U 


0.40 

. Ot'. 
O.Oii 


0.33 

1 . 20 
0.01 


0.3."> 

. 70 
0,00 


0.,3(; 
0.14 


0..".2 
O.O.". 


0.42 
O.Ml 


0.44 
0.03 






Total homo orohanl 

Othor fariustoail cro(v<. . . 

Pa^turo: 

PavUook. 

Pastiirt> in orohar\l. 


o.;4S 

0.07 
0.18 


0.72 

0.02 

0.11 
0.2S 


1.21 
0.07 

0.41 
. .".S 


0.82 
0.0,-. 

0.24 

0.32 


O.otl 
0.00 

0.24 


0.7.7 
0.02 

O.OS 


0.43 
0.02 

O.Io 


0.47 
0.03 

0.14 


Total farmstoad pas- 


O.lS 


0.30 


. i^O 


56 














Land ocoupioxl by buiKiiiiiKi. 
lawns, etc 


l..">-^ 


1.41 


2.02 


1.07 


1.00 


l.U 


0.71 


0«00 


Total farmstoad (.loss doublo 
oroppititfl 


:^.3t> 


2.1U 


4.02 


3.08 


3 . 10 


2.0.i 


1.42 


1.78 


Total farm arva 


7t> . -2 


127.30 


282. t>o 


173.42 


lOO.lX) 


uxvw 


100.00 


UX1.lX> 



The averasi'o size of the fannstoads on these farms \v:i^ 3. OS acres each, 
or 1.7S per oont i^t the total farm area. A Uttle less than one-half — 46 
ivr eent — of the total area of the farmsteads was producing some crop, 
either as garden, orchard, paddock, or otherwise. 

The location and the arrangement of nuv^t farmsteads are fixed. Since 
in many cases farmsteads have developtni without a definite plan, many 
of them are not well adapted to present conditicMis. In spite of tliis. it 
seldom pays to make revolutionary changes Ivcaiise of the expense 
invohed. In some cases when farms are combined, the location and 
the arrangement of the farmstead are so bad that it would pay to plan 
a new farmstead ui a convenient location. Usually, however, changes 
should be gradual. After a cai-eftil study of the farm conditions, a long- 
time plan for the farmstead and building development should be made. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



509 



Gradually, as conditions may justify, changes may be made in accordance 
with this plan, so that in a reasonable length of time a farmstead will be 
developed wjiich is well planned and is adapted to existing conditions. 



ORCMARO AND 
PADDOCK 

2 J a. 




OP£f^ATOR'S 



PUBLIC f?OAP 



!~ Fig. 136. an arrangement requiring much unnecessary travel 

The area of land oocupied by tho buildings of this farmstead is 2.82 acres, or \\ per cent of the farm 
area. More than 700 miles of walking would be saved yearly if the cow barn were 300 feet nearer the 
house 



Two well-planned farmsteads are shown in figure 137. Plan I represents 
the farmstead of a western New York fruit and general farm. Both the 
owner's house and the tenant house are near the barns, and yet the houses 
are far enough apart to enable two ordinary families to Uve haraioniously. 
Both houses are perhaps located a little too close to the road, but since 
this is a concrete highway there is little dust. The area occupied by build- 
ings is 1.22 acres, or 1 per cent of the farm area. The barns, rearranged 
in 1915 by the present owner, are centrahzed in order to save time in doing 



510 



W. I. Myers 



the chores. Plan II represents the fjirnistead of a western New York 
general farm. Here, also, labor is saved by having both the owner's 
house and the tenant house convenient to the barns, and the barns central- 
ized. The owner's house and the tenant house are separated by a part- 








ir 



PL/S^iC R-riAO 



Fig. 137. two well-planned farmsteads 



nership garden, while two orchards furnish an abundance of fruit for home 
use and some for sale. The area occupied by the buildings of tliis farm- 
stead is 1.84 acres, or 0.9 per cent of the total farmai-ea. Altho not ideal, 
both farmsteads are conveniently arranged and well adapted to their 
respective conditions. 

TENANT HOUSES 

Many of the present New York farms are combinations of two or more 
original farms or parts of farms. Usually each part of the present farm 
has separate buildings, and, since two farmsteads were unnecessary after 
combining, the extra house has in many cases been used as a tenant house 
for the hired man. In some cases inconveniently located houses have been 
moved to a convenient location near the main farmstead. On many 
farms tenant houses are still foimd in their original location, far from the 
main farmstead and causing the waste of much time in useless travel. 

From the standpoint of labor efficiency, tenant houses should be located 
as near the main farmstead as possible because many trips must be made 
daily from the hired man's house to the barns. Of course the tenant house 
should not be too near the barns. A distance of 100 feet is necessary to 
satisfy insurance regulations. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 511 

In order that the two families may live in harmony, it is advisable that 
the tenant house be located not too close to the owner's dwelUng. Each 
family wishes a certain amomit of privacy in its domestic life, but with 
adjoining houses this is impossible. If the two houses are 20 rods apart 
both families will be happier and they will be better neighbors. 

The location of the tenant houses shown in figure 137 illustrates very 
satisfactory compromises of these conflicting specifications. Privacy of 
the two families is secured in each case without sacrifice of convenience. 

A striking contrast to these farms is presented by the arrangement shown 
in figure 136 (page 509). The tenant house on this dairy farm is located 
127 rods,from the cow barn. The hired man makes three round trips daily 
on week days and two on Sundays, and in doing this he travels 810 miles 
a year between his home and the cow barn. When walking is bad across 
the fields, his trip is longer. If the tenant house were located 100 feet from 
the barn, less than 40 miles of walking in a year would be necessary. To 
walk the extra distance necessary with the present location, at an ordinary 
speed of three miles an hour, would require 257 hours, or nearly twenty- 
six days. At $2.25 a day the time wasted in useless travel amounts to 
$58 a year. This tenant house is valued at .S400. If it could be moved 
to a convenient location for $400, the time saved would pay about 15 per 
cent interest on the investment. While not all of this traveling is done 
during working hours, the farmer nevertheless pays for it all in lowered 
efficiency of the man. A hired man working hard every day does not 
need any such amount of additional exercise. 

In this particular case the hired man's wife milks twice daily, as is the 
custom in southeastern New York. In her two i-ound trips daily the 
hired man's wife walks 571 miles a year. The two thus walk 1381 miles a 
year between their house and the barns. Probably the wife gets no extra 
compensation for her additional exercise, so that it involves no direct 
financial outlay. It is quite certain, however, that a conveniently located 
tenant house would go a long way toward settling labor troubles on this 
farm and would prove an excellent investment for the owner. 

Another inconveniently located tenant house is shown in figure 138. 
The distance from the tenant house A to the cow-barn door is 140 rods. 
At present a milking machine is used on this farm, and so the hired man 
does not milk in the mornings. He thus makes tvm round trips daily, 
or 630 miles a year. At $2.50 a day the time thus spent would amount 



512 



W. I. Myers 










' I Mouse 

1 A 



HOUi£ 

; Ai 



to $52.50 a year. Half of these trips come out of the operator's time 

directly. The other half he pays for indirectly, perhaps unconsciously. 

Such a walk would be recreation to a factory woi'ker or a clerk, but to 

a man who works hard at 
physical labor all day it is 
a part of the day's work. 
Probalily this tenant house 
would be worth .f 500 or $(500 
more if it were located in 
the orchard near the main 
farmstead. 

The owner of this farm 
recently Iwught the small 
intervening farm, on which 
is locatetl tenant house B. 
The distance from here to 
the cow-barn is 56 rods less 
than from tenant house A. 
With two trips a day this 
location would save 252 
miles of walking in a year 
and perhaps $21 worth of 
time. The owner plans to 
move tenant liouse A to the 
location indicated as tenant 
house A'. This location is 
surely sufficiently remote 
from the main farmstead. 

On the farms included in 
this study, the average dis- 
tance from tenant houses to 
their respective farmsteads 
was 72 rods. Assuming a 

minimum of two round trips daily, this distance means 324 miles of travel 

in a year. A distance of 20 rods would be nnich better. 

Of the fifty-three farms studied, thirty-two had one or more tenant 

houses, the total number of houses being forty-five. Forty-two of the 



L 



Fig. 138. plan showing improvement in location 
OF tenant house 

The hired man on this farm formerly lived in tenant house 
A, 140 rods distant from the main farm barns. This location 
necessitated a minimum of ()30 miles of walking yearly between 
the tenant house and the barn. In 191S the owner purchased 
the intervening farm and the hired man moved into tenant 
house B. This location is .o(3 rods nearer the barn and saves 
at least 250 miles of walking, or about 80 hours, in a year 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



513 



forty-five tenant houses had gardens, the average size of garden being 0.3 
acre (table 31). In addition to a garden, eighteen of the hired men were 
furnished potatoes from the farm crop. The size of gardens ranged from 
0.1 acre to 1.2 acres. Where hired men are given large gardens they are 

TABLE 31. Tenant Houses on Fifty-three New York Farms 



Gardens 

Orchards 

Land occupied by buildings 

Total area 



Area 
occupied 
by 45 
tenant 
houses 
(acres) 



13.28 

1.32 

19. (M 



34.24 



Average 

area 

occupied 

by each 

tenant 

house 

(acres) 



30 
0.03 
0.44 



0.76 



not usually furnished potatoes for winter use in addition. The area of 
land necessary to grow the potatoes furnished to the hired men was about 
4.6 acres, or an average of 0.1 acre to each tenant house. Only two of the 
forty-five tenant houses had separate orchards for the hired man's use. 
On most farms the hired man is given such fruit as the farm produces, 
but does not have a separate orchard. 

On most farms not enough attention has been paid to the location and 
arrangement of tenant houses. The house should, of course, be comfort- 
able. The garden should be ample in size, usually from half an acre to 
an acre. Few hired men will leave a good garden in midsummer. A 
little care and attention in these matters will make for more efficient work 
and better-satisfied hired men. In times of labor shortage these considera- 
tions gain added importance. 

RELATION OF FARM LAYOUT TO OTHER FACTORS 
The preceding discussions give some of the specifications for an ideal 
farm layout, but the layout of most farms is far from ideal. Farm lay- 
outs have developed, not according to a well-laid plan, but largely according 
to chance, and as a result they are not adapted to present conditions. 



514 W. I. Myers 

The farm plans included in these pages illustrate, in the main, all the unde- 
sirable features of farm layout and few of the good features. And yet 
these are the plans of prosperous farms, larger, better organized, and more 
profitable than the average New York farm. Some of these farms never 
were well arranged. Others were once well arranged, but changes in their 
area or in agricultural conditions have made them unsuited to present 
conditions. Only a few of them, indeed, are even reasonably well arranged 
to meet present conditions. It is therefore evident that the main problem 
of farm layout is the problem of rearranging farms to meet conditions of 
the present day and of the probable future. 

On most New York farms it would not be possible to make an arrange- 
ment that would satisfy all the requirements of an ideal farm layout. 
There are natural limitations which prevent many farms from ever having 
even a moderately good layout. Perhaps the most important of these 
natural limitations is topography. Given fairly fertile land, its topography 
usually determines whether it shall be crojiped or pastured. If it is too 
steep for machine operation, it must be pastured. In the hilly parts of 
New York it is necessary to crop all the land that is level enough. The 
field lines of such farms, therefore, follow the contour lines, and small, 
crooked fields are the usual result. Since topography cannot be altered, 
the shape and the size of fields on many farms are limited by this 
factor. 

Soil differences limit the development of farm layout to some extent. 
It is preferable to have all the soil in one field fairly uniform. In most 
cases the differences in soil between adjoining fields are not great enough 
to make this factor important. Differences in drainage also are important 
in combining fields. All the land in a field should have uniform drainage, 
otherwise the whole field must wait for the wet land to dry. The drainage 
can be made uniform in many cases by tiling wet areas. 

HOW TO PLAN A FARM REARRANGEMENT AND FOLLOW OUT THE PLAN 

In spite of natural limitations it is possible and practicable to greatly 
improve the layout on nearly all farms. Thei-e is no one particular layout 
to fit all cases. Every farm presents an individual problem which must 
be studied and considered separately. 

The first ste}:) in j^lanning a rearrangement is to study the farm and the 
conditions surroimding it. For this purpose it is well to have a map of 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 515 

the farm. This need not be an engineer's map, accurately drawn to scale; 
a rough plan showing the relative sizes, shapes, and locations of the various 
fields will serve. The more accurate the map, the worse, usually, will it 
make the farm look. In addition to the map, it is necessary to have 
a thoro knowledge of the soil and drainage conditions, and of the topog- 
raphy of the different parts of the farm. 

The second step in planning a rearrangement is to decide on the cropping 
plan or rotation that is to be followed. While it is not possible to follow 
a rigid crop rotation on most farms, it is advisable to follow a fairly definite 
cropping plan. Knowing the crops that are to be grown, the acreage 
needed for each, and the crop area, a cropping plan can be made which 
will satisfy these requirements. If two rotations are followed, two sets 
of fields, perhaps of different sizes, will be required. 

After studying the farm and deciding on the system of farming and the 
crop rotation to be followed, plans should be made for the long-time 
development of the farm which will provide as good a layout as the natural 
limitations will permit. The plans should be developed slowly and the 
work should be done at odd times. The savings to be made are seldom 
large enough to pay the entire cost in one year. If properly planned, such 
work helps in the labor distribution by keeping the men profitably employed 
when there is little other work to be done. Small fields can gradually 
be combined into larger units without radical changes in the rotation. It 
is usually unnecessary and unwise to plow up a good new seeding in order 
to combine two fields; the same results might be accomplished in a year 
or two by repeating a crop on one of the fields, or by leaving down a piece 
of hay for another year. 

In buying a farm the layout is worthy of careful consideration. Before 
buying, a map or rough plan of the fields should be made, indicating the 
area and the important natural features of each. 

ACTUAL REARRANGEMENTS OF SOME NEW YORK FARMS AS MADE BY 

OWNERS 

While on most farms the rearrangement of the layout to meet conditions 
of the present day has received Uttle attention, on some farms such changes 
have been and are being made. A few of these rearrangements are 
described in the following pages. 



51G 



W. 1. Myeils 



REARRANGEMENT OF TWO CENTRAL NEW YORK FARMS 

The first farm 

In figure 139 is shown the plan of three central New York farms as exist- 
ing in 1914. These farms were owned at that time by one man but were 



I 




Fig. 139. plan of three central new york farms as operated in 1914 
The tillable land of these farms was divided into sixty-four small fields, averaging 4.3 acres each 
Farm area, 646.4 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 4.3,acres 

run as separate iniits, two being rented and the third being operated by 
the owner. The topography of the section is rolling, a considerable pro- 
l^ortion of the farm areas being in untillal)le permanent pasture. The 
important crops grown are silage corn, cabbage, hay, oats, potatoes, and 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 517 

buckwheat. Dairying is the most important enterprise. Milk, cabbage, 
hay, and buckwheat are the principal products sold. 

These farms were excellent examples of patch farming, the tillable 
land being tUvided into sixty-four general crop fields averaging 4.3 acres 
each. On the three farms there were in 1914 a total of eight patches of 
corn, nine of oats, thirty-eight of hay, two of millet, two of cabloage, four 
of potatoes, and one of buckwheat. Some of these patches were farmed 
together when in hay, but the land had been plowed in the sixty-four 
fields shown on the map. There was no particular reason why these 
farms should be worked in such patches, except that they always had been 
farmed that way. Practically the only interior fences were the pasture 
fences, wliich were made irregular by natural conditions of topography 
and drainage. Fields J^, K^, L-, M', N-, 0^, and P' had never been 
manured, to the knowledge of the present owner. Fields G^ and H^ had 
been manured but once. 

The field marked "Another owner," in the center of these farms, belongs 
to and is farmed by a farmer living more than a haK mile away. The 
owner of this patch continues to farm this land at such a disadvantage, 
rather than trade it for a like area of land adjacent to his buildings, having 
refused such an offer from the former owner of these farms. 

In the spring of 1915 these farms were purchased by their present owner, 
who was able to make only a small payment and gave a mortgage for the 
remainder of the purchase price. He worked the entire area as one farm, 
but he used all the farmsteads. Farmstead 2 was the real center of farm 
operation because it was the one most centrally located. The cows were 
kept here and the house was occupied by one hired man. The house at 
farmstead 1 was occupied by the owner, who kept his team and some young 
stock in the adjoining barns. The house at farmstead 3 was occupied by 
another hired man, who kept his team in the barn adjoining. The fourth 
house was used for the other regular hired man. By this plan of operation 
some of the disadvantages of the large 'area were overcome. Each worker 
had his team convenient to his house, and, when choice was possible, 
worked in the fields that were the most convenient. All the men helped with 
the milking at the main farmstead, but the young stock were located at one 
of the other two barns. Hay for sale was drawn to the most convenient 
barn. Oats were threshed from the two barns where the straw was needed. 

Before starting spring plowing the first year, the new owner had decided 
on a plan of rearrangement and had the work on it well under way. The 



518 



W. I. Myers 



clev(^lopment of the plan has been progressing slowly each year up to the 
present time. The plan of the farm in 1917 is shown in figure 140. As 
shown by this map, there are now twelve crop fields averaging 23.4 acres 



i»i >>» ,»«*; •»'% •'.••^•i I V-*»y* '*'*•%* » 




Fig. 140. the farm .shown in figure 139, after rearrangement 

The change from si.xty-four small crop fields to twelve large crop fields required the removal of less 

than 300 rods of fence 
Farm area, 640.4 acres 
Average size of fanned fields, 23.4 acres 
x\v2rage distance to farmed fields, 117 rods 

each, instead of sixty-four fields of 4.3 acres each. These changes have 
involved Httle expense and have necessitated the removal of but few fences. 
Seven fields were combined to form field S, of 38 acres, without taking out 
a fence. Five fields were combined to form field H, also without removing 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 519 

a fence. Ten fields have been combined to form fields J and K, and these 
will later be farmed as one field. Nine fields have been combined to form 
field F, 42 acres, by taking out 60 rods of barbed wire fence. Six fields 
have been combined to form field C by taking out 40 rods of barbed wire 
fence. Seven fields have been combined to form field A, which is farmed 
in two parts. When opportunity offers, the stone line inclosing 5 acres 
of this field will be removed and the 26 acres will be farmed as one field. 
Nine fields have been combined to form field L by clearing an acre of worth- 
less orchard, taking down 30 rods of rail fence, and removing 65 rods of 
stone fence. This stone fence and the two large stone piles formerly in 
field T were removed without charge, in return for the providing of a site 
for a stone crusher which crushed the stone for the construction of a county 
road thru the farm. The remaining 40 rods of stone and brush fence 
projecting clown into this field will be removed when opportunity offers. 
Three fields have been combined to form field N, and five to form field O, 
without any expense. In addition to these changes many trees have been 
removed from the crop fields for firewood. 

The present plan of this farm is not an ideal layout. Many of the fields 
are irregular in shape and must always remain so because of topogi'aphy. 
The shape of a 40-acre field is far less important, however, than the shape 
of a 4-acre field. There are some short rows in field F, but most of the 
rows in the field will be from 70 to 100 rods long. The changes thus far 
brought about have been made at small expense and have been paid for 
by the saving of labor made possible by larger fields. The owner has 
been heavily in debt and has not allowed work on improvements to inter- 
fere with more important work on crops. His most important job just 
now is paying for his farm, and nothing should be allowed to interfere 
with this. 

The present arrangement of this farm can be improved materially in 
the future, when the owner's finances warrant the necessary outlay. The 
shape of fields F and C can be improved by reclaiming some of the adjoin- 
ing pasture land. This will necessitate drainage and the clearing off of 
some stone. Fields J and K can be enlarged and improved in shape by 
adding some of the pasture land toward the creek. By tiling some of 
this pasture, it can be made the best crop land on the farm. Fields N 
and O will be combined by reclaiming some of the pasture P. Field L 
can never be made regular in shape because of natural conditions, but 
it may be improved somewhat by extending it toward field S and taking 



520 W. I. Myers 

in part of field P. Field E may be improved and enlarged by drainage, 
or it may be turned back into pasture. It is rather distant and is not 
especially good lantl. The corner of woods in field A will probably be 
cleared off and this area added to the crop land. The pastures also could 
be improved by the cutting of some timber. There is, however, plenty 
of pasture for the stock now kept, and this change would be one of the last 
to be made. 

This fai'm is larger in area than most farms, l)ut the same principles 
could have been worked out on a smaller scale on any one of the three 
farms of which it is composed. It illustrates very well what great improve- 
ments can frequently be made at slight expense, by good management. 

The second farm 

The original plan of the various parcels of land which have been com- 
bined into one centi'al New York farm is shown in figure 141, The 
present area of the farm is 478 acres, and the land was purchased in nine 
different parcels fi'om as many owners. Some of the persons from whom 
the present owner bought had already b(»gun the work of combination, 
so that this farm represents fifteen different farms or parts of farms to 
the knowledge of the former owners. Except for j)arecls A and B, the 
topography of these farms is practically level. There are no physical 
reasons for the small, irregular fields. The principal crops grown are 
corn, oats, whcnit, and hay. 

Considering its tojiograjihy, parcel B had a fairly good layout, the irregu- 
lar boundaries of the fields being due largely to this factor. The crop 
land north of the pasture field 11 was divided into five fields for a five- 
years rotation. Fields 6 and 10 were cropped but should have been pas- 
tured. Both fields ar(^ extremely steep. Little stock was kept on this 
farm, the only field jxistuivd being 11. 

Parcel C was a level tract of 100 acres divided into twenty-four small, 
irregular fields. Except for the road and the woods, the whole farm might 
have been worked in one field, there being no physical obstacles to this. 
Fields 9 and 12 were the first fields cleared, evidently because they had 
drier, warmer soils than the remainder of tjie farm. They happened to 
be laid out diagonally to the farm l)oun(la,ries, and this accident apparently 
determined the layout of the whole farm. For many years the farm was 
worked in these small, irregular fields, because it was easier in any one 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



521 



year to do this than to remove the obstructions. Little stock was kept, 
and this was pastured on the best tillable land on the farm. The little 
manure produced was spread on the fields near the buildings. Fields 20, 




Fig. 141. plan of fifteen farms and parts of farms which have been cobibined 
into one farm of 477.8 acres 

The crop land of these farms was divided into sixty-nine small, irregular fields, averaging 4.2 acres each, 
lixcept for a part of parcel B the land was practically level 

21, 22, 23, 14, 15, and 18 had not been manured for at least eleven years. 
Fields 20 and 21 were formerly farmed as one field, as also were fields 22 
and 23. Being divided one year by accident, they were farmed afterward 



522 W. I. Myers 

as separate fields. There were few fences, and the whole farm could have 
been rearranged with little trouble and expense. 

Most of the land in parcels D, E, F, and H had originally been included 
in one farm, with the buildings as shown in parcel E. When the owner of 
this farm died without leaving a will, the land was divided by the court 
among the eight heirs, giving each a little piece of crop land and a little 
piece of woods. This division destroyed the value of the land for farming 
because each tract was too small. Some of the tracts had already been 
combined when purchased by the present owner. 

Parcel G, a tract of 50 acres, was part of a larger farm. Parcel I had 
originally been two farms, with building centers as shown. This farm, 
which is practically level except in the southern part, was divided into 
twenty-eight small fields. There were several crooked hedgerows which 
caused irregular fields and wasted much land. Two small open ditches 
also helped to make the fields irregular. 

In all there were one hundred and six fields in tlie land now occupied by 
this farm. Little stock was kept and there were few good fences. Some 
land was cropped which was good only for pasture, and some of the best 
tillable land was pastured. The woodlots occupied It^vel tillable land 
except in the southern part of farm I, but contained little good timber. 
The crop land was divided into sixty-nine small, irregular fields, averaging 
4.2 acres each. 

In 1907 the present owner of this farm bought parcel B, subject to lease. 
Possession was not secured, therefore, until 1908. In the next two years 
a few changes were made in the arrangement of this farm. Fields 6 and 
10, wliich were too steep to be farmed ecofiomically, weie fenced and 
pastured. The brush in the pasture field 11 was cut, and some tile was 
laid in field 12. In 1910 parcel C was purchased, and this step entirely 
changed the plans of rearrangement. Before the rearrangement of these 
farms had progressed far, parcel I was Ixjught, in 1912. The remainder 
of the present farm was ])urchased in 1914 and 1915. 

The results of the work of ten years on the development of this farm 
layout are shown in the farm plan for 1918, figure 142. Instead of sixty- 
nine small, irregular crop fields, there are now five main crop fields 
averaging about 50 acres each, convenient to the buildings. To plow the 
sixty-nine crop fields of the old arrangement with a 14-inch plow would 
require about 20,000 turns at the ends of the fiekl, while to plow the five 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



523 



50-acre fields requires but 6000 turns. More important than the saving 
in turning by the farming of large fields is the gain in eflficiency result- 




FlG. 142. THE FARM SHOWN IN FIGURE 141, AFTER REARRANGEMENT 

Instead of sixty-nine small, irregular rrop fields, there are now five main crop fields averaging 50 acres 
each, convenient to the buildings. The average distance to the farmed fields is GO rods 
Farm area, 477.8 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 28.5 acres 
Average distance to farmed fields, 60 rods 

ing from the driving of more horses to each man and the use of larger 
machines. Dragging is done with four horses instead of two. A four- 
horse drill has replaced the two-horse drills and a four-horse binder is 



524 W. 1. Myers 

used. Larger fields permit the effective use of larger machines and more 
horses to the team, and thus greatly increase the efficiency of labor. 

The present layout provides for a better utilization of land. About 
6 acres have been added to the crop land by eliminating hedgerows and 
useless fences. The entire farm is now fenced but the fences occupy only 
2.8 acres. About an acre was added to the crop land by tiling open ditches, 
while a much greater area which had previously been in permanent hay 
was thus made tillable. About 26 acres which had previously been lying 
idle in brush or swamp were made productive by including them in the 
pastures. In addition to this, 45 acres of woodland were added to the pas- 
ture area. Thirty-six acres of land which was too steep or too wet to be 
cultivated, but which had formerly been in crops, were added to the pas- 
ture land. In addition, 8 acres of poorer crop land were utilized in pad- 
docks near the buildings. Fifty-two acres of the best land on the farm, 
wliich had formerly been pastured, were added to the crop land. 

The arrangement of pastures in this layout is very convenient. Each 
of the main crop fields can be connected with a permanent pasture, and 
hence with water when temporarily jiastured. The paddock of 6 acres 
south of the main farmstead forms a wide lane to the main pasture. There 
will certainly be no waste land in this lane. The small pastin-es for the 
bull and the hogs save much time. The other pastures are likewise so 
arranged as to open up near the buildings. 

The four small crop fields, F, G, H, and I, are used for a rotation of beets, 
potatoes, and other minor crops. Field T has been kept in alfalfa most 
of the time. Field N is too distant to be worked to advantage and will 
probably be disposed of. It adjoins a larger field of another farm, shutting 
tliis field off from the highway. Fields P, Q, and R are used for stock 
kept at the adjacent farmstead. The houses designated as No. 2 and No. 
3 are used as tenant houses for hired men. 

Along with the fields, the buildings of these farms have likewise been 
rearranged to adapt them to present conditions. The main farmstead 
has been developed at the center of the farm convenient to the fields. A 
house and a few barns were already located here. By using these barns 
and the frames and linnber from the other barns scattered over the original 
farms, a well-planned centralized set of buildings has been developed. 
They have adequate storage capacity and are conveniently arranged for 
work. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



525 



Further changes will be made in the future. The woods will be cut 
from field L, and the land will be pastured until the stumps rot and will 
finally be added to the crop area. The southern part of field A is rather 
poor. When the present fence gives out, a new fence will probably be 
put thru from the cast end, parallel to the farm boundary, thus adding a 
few acres to the pasture. To replace the area lost, fields F and G may be 
added to field A. One of the more distant tenant houses will probably 
be moved to a location near the main farmstead. This will save much 
useless walking. 

The changes in this farm have been made more rapidly than would 
ordinarily be justified, but they have not interfered with the successful 
operation of the farm. The original small fields have been gradually com- 
bined into larger units without seriously interfering with crop production. 



REARRANGEMENT OF A NORTHERN NEW YORK FARM 

The plan of a northern New York farm as existing in 1912 is shown in 
figure 143. This farm was rather long and narrow, with the buildings at 



i-5'5a. I 
l-5.2a Ij 



t-8.8 . 
' -8.7 , 



V 1 8 a [:: 



^>?j5/ii//?r-!4.9 a 



K-5-2 



."^^ '-10; 




Fig. 143. plan of a northern new york farm in 1912 

Farm area, 1 1 <1 a''res 

Average size of farmed fields, 7.-1 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 74 rods 

one end. There were eleven farmed fields averaging 7.4 acres each, the 
average distance to the nearest corners of the fields being 74 rods. 

The owner of the farm wanted more land, and in 1913 he purchased the 
118-acre farm directly across the road, making a total farm area of 234 



52G 



W. I. Myers 




An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



527 




528 W. I. Myers 

acres. The crop land of the new farm was more convenient for farming 
than the land on the original farm. Altho the farm was doubled in size 
by the purchase, the average distance 'traveled to fields was actually 
decreased from 74 rods to 64 rods. The plan of the two farms is shown 
in figure 144. 

By this combination two small farms, either one of which was too small 
to furnish a satisfactory living with the type of farming made necessary 
by soil and other conditions, were combined into one farm large enough 
to be operated successfully and economically. The large area of pasture 
on the newly purchased farm was needed for keeping a good-sized herd of 
cows. It was easily reached by the lane and a cattle-pass under the rail- 
road. The other house was used for a hired man, and the other barn 
for young stock. 

Since 1913 many of the fields have been com])ined and enlarged. The 
plan of the farm as it existed in 1917 is shown in figure 145. There are 
four main fields — F, H, R, and S — of good size and shape, and several 
smaller fields. The small fields A, B, C\ D, and E are pastured in rotation. 
The soil is very sandy and does not hold grass well. : The changes that 
have been made in the field arrangement did not require the moving of a 
single fence. All that was needed was a little care and thought in planning 
crops so that the fields coukl be coml^ined. There is still opportunity 
for further improvement in the layout. 

This plan shows one example of locating the buildings in the middle 
of the farm by buying the land across the road. Not only was the 
layout improved by this means, but one successful farm was made of 
two unprofitable ones. \ 

REARRANGEMENT OF A WESTERN NEW YORK FARM 

The plan of a western New York farm as it existed in 1910 is shown in 
figure 140. The farm is located in a general farming region where little 
stock is kept. Two cows were kept on the farm for home use. There 
was no other stock except horses. Apples, peaches, potatoes, cabbage, 
and wheat are grown for sale in this section, also corn, hay, and some oats 
for fai'm use. The topography is gently rolling and nqarly all of the land 
is tillable. The soil vaiies in different parts of the; ft^rm, but in general 
it is a fine sandy loam.j ' . i 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



529 



- F^^ru^f: 




W^>^'-'- 



,aa. 



F£:/iCH£5- 



o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o O 

L-5,7a, ° 

o O O o o o 
o o o o o o o 



o, 
o 
o o 



Vj. ?< 



o o 

'a. o 

o o o o o 



A/- 



7,3 a. 
7,0 a. 



ry 9,5a. . 
^-9. /a. 



/ippi£:5 



1 



u u — u u u — CT 



Fig. 146. bearrangement of a western new tork farm — i 

Plan in 1910, before rearrangement 



530 W. I. Myers 

This plan illustrates the chance way in wliich most farm arrangements 
have developed. Field E happened to be a wet piece of land and was 
therefore put into pasture. Tliis made a lane necessary. The lane was 
run directly from the bam to the pasture, diagonal to the farm lines. 
A peach orchard was planted along the lane, with rows parallel to it, thus 
fixing its location permanently. Every field on the farm was irregular 
in shape, with a greater or less number of short rows. Even fields of 
fairly good size which could have been farmed in one piece were farmed in 
small patches; field F, for example, in 1912 was divided into four patches, 
of corn, potatoes, cabbage, and beans, respectively, with the rows running 
crosswise, as the field lines indicate. The fence lines were full of stone and 
brush and wasted much land. The brush and stone fence between fields 
H and I occupied a strip of land al^out 24 feet wide. The rail and stone 
fence iDetween fields A and B occupied a strip of land 14 feet wide. 

The farm was purchased by the present owner in the fall of 1912 and he 
began clearing up at once. After a careful study of conditions he planned 
a rearrangement, and l)egan to work out his plan gradually, as opportunity 
permitted. In 1912, 40 rods of the old rail and stone fence between 
fields A and B was removed. In 1913, 2.5 acres of the pasture F (fig. 147) 
was added to the crop land of field H, a woven wire fence was built inclosing 
field F, and the old rail pasture fence was removed from field H. Also, 
a woven wire fence was built between the wet pasture I and the old 
orchard M. In 1913 and 1914, the two cross fences were cleared out of 
field K, which appears as the first field of the new layout, a rectangular 
field of 13.8 acres. Al)out 100 loads of stone from these fences were drawn 
to the barnyard. In 1914 an old stone line was removed from field S. 
This permitted fields R and S to be farmed in two fields, instead of three 
as theretofore. Other minor changes made in 1914 were the removal of 
the I'oad fence of field K, the completion of the lane fence, and the removal 
of the stone and brush fence between fields J and L. Field G was put in 
alfalfa to save farming the short rows caused by the lane along the side. 
The plan of the farm in 1915, now lieginning to take shape, is shown in 
figuie 148. In tlie spring of 1915, the rail fence north of field C, running 
across fields A and (\ was removed. Ajiple trees were set out in field I. The 
fence between fields E and II was cleared away, as well as the fence south 
of field C Thei-e were 30 loads of stonc^ in these fences. A start was made 
also in removing the stone wall south of field L. Perhaps the most impor- 
tant work done in that year was the rearrangement of the farm buildings. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



531 



^- 



/^.5a 



/^. /c^ 



/^, /a. 



^\/^,3 a. 

1/3* 6 3» / 

I 

I 



J L 




1° o o o 
"O — J U u u 



o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o o 
o o o o o 

o 0-5.7a, o 

o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o o 

o p-3. /a. o 

o o o o o o o 

^-5. 6 a. 



5- 



//./3. 



/o,6a. 




Fig. 147. rearrangement of a western new york farm — ii 

Farm plan in 1914. Some old fences have been removed and field K appears as the fiist field of the 

rearrangement 



532 



W. I. Myers 







J 3 






o.z-a. 



o o o o o o o 
o o a o o o o 
o o o o o o o 

o o/- 5 *7 3* o 

o o o o o o o 

^ o o o o o o 

o c//-3#/<5'. o 

o o p o o o o 



^-5. 6 a. 



o 



//, /a^ 
~/o.7a. 




Fig. 148. rearrangement of a western new york farm — iii 

Farm plan in I'JIS. More fences have been removed and fields A and B begin to take shape. The farm 

buildings were rearranged in 1915 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



533 



^ 



B 



\o 



o o o o 

O O O Q 

o C 

/9.^a.\/7. 9a:.-^.6a. 
/6'\9aJ7.6a:" II, 



.<i 



,'' I 




J-_.Ij^"l!?!^- 



O O o o o o o 

o o o o o o o 

o o o o 

o J- 3". T a * o 

O O O o o o o 



/6,3 a, 




Fig. 149. rearrangement of a western new york farm — rv 
Farm plan in 1918 



534 



W. I. Myers 











O O O O O' 

' o o o o o 


P/)5TUfi'E' 




. 




o o o o o 

C-/0 3. ■ 

-^ ; : \ ,' ^-^ 1 o o o o o 


1 

1 o o o o d 1 
o o o o o 1 








o o o o o 
O O o o o 

P€/iff5 : 


r- 20 . T a* O O O O 1 
~20, ea, O O O O O 1 

r-/3,6a. 

' - ' \'o' '6 o o o 


1 


p/ippoch- 




-: ''/'-'' 


o ^ o - 
I JO o o o 


1 
1 

1 o o o o 
o o o o 
o o o o 
o o o o 
o o o o 


/ ■ ■ 
' 1 ■ 


__■!! 


.Ga. 




■ 


o o o o o o o . 


. 






. 




•o o o o o o o ■ 


1 


■ 




,. /9. 9a:"- 
^ /9,^a^ ■ 


1 




■ 




■ 


" 



Fig. 150. rearrangement of a western new york farm — v. final plan 

Instead of small, irregular fields, as in the original plan, there will be four large rectangular fields of about 
20 acres each and averaging nearly 100 rods long. About 10 acres of crop land has been gained. Much 
more important than this, however, is the saving of labor made possible by imp^o^^ng the size and shape 
of the fields 

Farm area, 125.4 acres 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 535 

The next step in the development of this rearrangement, the farm plan 
in 1918, is shown in figm-e 149. The remainder of the stone wall south of 
field J was draAvn to the barnyard in the spring of 1916. There were about 
150 loads of stone. The stone fence along the north end of field B, about 
50 loads of stone, was cleared away during 1916 and 1917. Twenty rods 
of the stone fence north of field E was cleared away in 1917, and the 
line fence along fields E and F was removed. The old 7-acre pasture 
south of the old orchard G was cleared, and was sowed to wheat with the 
remainder of field E in the fall of 1917. Thirty-five loads of stone were 
removed from the fence along the north side of this pasture. A line of 
tile with some laterals was laid in field A to drain the low area in the middle 
of this field. In the spring of 1918, 4.3 acres of peach trees were set out 
in field C^ to fill up the short rows south of the old peach orchard C. Since 
the trees on the east side of this orchard were deteriorating, 1.4 acres of 
them were pulled and the area cleared was added to field B. The peach 
trees in field K had become worthless. This field was pastured in 1918 
and the trees were pulled in the late fall. 

The owner's final plan for the rearrangement of his farm is shown in 
figure 150. The general crop land will be divided into four rectangular 
fields of about 20 acres each. Two of these fields are 100 rods long, and 
field H, which is the shortest, is 80 rods long. In addition to the general 
crops there will be about 20 acres of apples, 10 acres of peaches, and 2.4 
acres of pears. The former diagonal lane will be replaced by the lane shown, 
running from the corner of the paddock J. The open ditches thru fields 
H and E will be tiled. Finally, the owner plans to clear up the stone and 
brush in the line fences with the help of his neighbors. These fences will 
then be replaced by woven wire or the areas will be left unfenced, as cir- 
cumstances determine. 

Probably about ten years will be required to rearrange this farm layout. 
The work done thus far has been performed at odd times and has not inter- 
fered with the successful operation of the farm. The owner is making an 
excellent living from the farm, is enjoying Ufe, and at the same time is 
constantly making his farm more valuable. If possible he will rent or 
buy about 20 additional acres of land for general crops, so that a five-years 
rotation can be followed. 

The contrast between the original and the ultimate layout of this farm 
shows plainly the advantages of the rearrangement. Instead of nine 
fields farmed in fourteen irregular patches of an average size of 6.2 acres 



536 W. I. Myers 

each, there will be four rectangular crop fields averaging 19.6 acres each. 
About 10 acres of crop land has been gained, 3 acres by clearing fence rows 
and 7 acres from pasture. Crop land is worth .$125 an acre. More 
important than the land gained, however, is the saving in labor made 
possible by improving the size and shape of the fields. 

POSSIBLE REARRANGEMENTS OF SOME NEW YORK FARMS 

AVliile comprehensive rearrangements such as the preceding have been 
worked out on comparatively few farms, a growing number of farmers are 
beginning to plan some improvements of their farm layouts. In making 
such improvements it is important to have a fairly definite scheme of 
rearrangement in mind. As time goes on and the work proceeds, the details 
of the plan will probably be changed many times. Much thought, much 
time, and a great deal of work are required for the satisfactory execution 
of such a plan, but the results should l^e worth while. 

In the following pages a few examples are given of ]iossible rearrange- 
ments of farms. Considering all farm conditions an attempt has been 
made to plan a satisfactory layout for each. The rearrangements suggested 
are not the only ones possible, and probably are not the best possible, 
but they offer an improvement over present conditions. 

POSSIBLE REARRANGEMENT OF TWO CENTRAL NEW YORK FARMS 

The first farm 

The plan of a central New York farm of 126 acres is shown in figure 151. 
Most of the land is tillable and in crops. The topography is rolling, but 
not steep enough to interfere with the use of machinery. The principal 
crops grown are silage corn, corn for grain, potatoes, oats, wheat, hay, 
apples, and alfalfa. Potatoes, wheat, apples, milk, and some hay are sold. 
A small herd of from eight to ten cows is kept. The soil is light enough 
to be worked easily, l)ut grows good grain and hay. In general, a four- 
years rotation, of com and potatoes, oats, wheat, hay, is followed. Occa- 
sionally the hay is left down for more than one year. 

The present layout of this farm as shown on the map is much better 
than that of most farms. Tlie fields are of fair size, most of them are 
regular in shape, and they are convenient to the buildings. The farm is 
made up of three parts, fields H and I from one farm, and field J from 
another, having been added to the original farm by the present owner. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



537 




Fig. 151. plan of a centeal new york farm in 1915 

Farm area, 126.3 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 10.5 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 32 rods 



538 



W. I. Myers 



Since there are eight fields and a four-years rotation is followed, the fields 
have been farmed in pairs, as follows: A and C, B and G, E and F, and H 
and I. Field H has been pastured a part of the time because of the swampy 



O-S /<3. -nisruitc 




Fig. 152, plan in 1917 op farm shown in figure 151 

The land appearing as field L on this plan formerly belonged to a farmer who lived three-quarters of a 
mile away. In the spring of 1917 it was added to this farm 
Farm area, 149.4 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 10,6 acres 



spot in the Iowcm' side, which cannot be easily drained. The cows are driven 
down the hijjjhway to the pasture J, a distance of about 100 rods. 

More land was needed, and, having a good opportunity, the owner 
purchased a tract of about 24 acres on the west side of his former hold- 
ing, in the spring of 1917 (fig. 152). This land belonged to a farmer 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



539 



who lived three-quarters of a mile away, and had been worked under this 
disadvantage for many years. Being located far from the buildings, this 
land had received no manure and but little care. The land was run down 
and the fence rows were full of brush and stones. It was evidently 




Fig. 153. a possible rearrangement op the farm shown in figure 152 

Few changes would be required to enlarge and combine the fields as suggested 
Farm area, 149,4 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 16.7 acres 
Average distance to farmed fields, 38 rods 

worth much more as a part of an adjoining farm than as a part of a farm 
nearly a mile away, and the change in ownership finally took place. 

A good plan of rearrangement for the present farm is shown in figure 153. 
The necessary changes are relatively few and could be made in a few years. 
Fields A and B of the present plan would be combined to make the new 



540 W. I. Myers 

field A. This would involve only the removal of the woven wire fence 
between the two fields. The present field C is labeled G in the new plan 
and would be kept in alfalfa. The present fields E and F would become the 
new field B. The new field C is the land last purchased. An unnecessary 
rail fence between the new fields B and C has already been removed. The 
lower part of the west boundary of the new field C was formed by a brush 
and stone fence row which wasted a strip of land more than a rod wide. 
The brush ranged in size from small brush to trees 8 inches in diameter, 
and there were about 20 loads of stone. To clear up and plow this 36 
rods of hedgerow required about 90 hours of man labor arnd 45 hours of 
horse labor. At 25 cents an hour for man labor and 40 cents for a team, 
the cost of this work would be $31.50, or 87^ cents a rod. A quarter of 
an acre of land was reclaimed, worth from $20 to $25, and thus the net 
cost of removing the obstruction was low. 

Fields D^ and D- would be farmed together to make the fourth field of 
the new layout. The present 4.6-acre woodlot occupies level tillable 
land which would be worth $100 an acre if cleared. It contains practi- 
cally no timber but the trees are being cut for firewood for home iise and 
for sale. It is planned to cut off all the wood in about five years, approxi- 
mately a fifth having been cut during the winter of 1917-18. After the 
timber is cut, this stump lot will be cleared for cropping as soon as possible. 
Since there is no water supply it cannot be conveniently pastured while 
the stumps are rotting. 

The proposed layout has five large fields which are to be farmed as four, 
averaging 23 acres each, besides one field for alfalfa. Eventually the 
stump lot H will be cleared and added to the crop area. 

The owner of this farm is looking ahead still further. It will probal)ly 
be possible in a few years to buy the 24-acre field wliich lies between the 
present fields I and J. This lot is farmed at great inconvenience by a man 
who hves a mile away. It is worth much more to the man who lives across 
the road. If this land is acquired, the rearrangement shown in figure 154 
will be made possible. This plan would provide for four fields of about 
30 acres each, and 8 acres for alfalfa. The four main crop fields are of 
fairly good shape and all are convenient for working. Alth-o field C is 
nearly square, this is not a serious drawback in a field of 30 acres. The 
cost of the necessary changes would be small and the saving of labor 
would pay the entire expense in a few years. Five acres of crop land would 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



541 



be gained, mostly from the woodlot. The vakie of tliis land would more 
than cover the cost of clearing. 

On the east side of this farm is a small farm comprising 30 acres of rather 
poor land with poor buildings. Since the latter farm is too small to pro- 




FlG. 154. ANOTHER POSSIBLE REARRANGMENT OF THE FARM SHOWTST IN FIGURE 152 

The land shown as field D in this plan belongs to a farmer who lives a mile away, and is thus worked 
at a f'reat disadvantage. The land is worth more to the ownpr of this farm, and if it were acquired by 
him tlie farm might be rearranged as suggested. Four long crop fields are provided for a four-years rota- 
tion, and in addition there is a small field for alfalfa 

Farm area, 173.4 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 2.5.8 acres 

Average distance to farmed fields, 30 rods 

duce a satisfactory living, it will probably be for sale in a few years. If 
it can be purchased reasonably, this land will be added to the farm under 
consideration, for pasture. Since it adjoins the small pasture at the north 
end of tiie farm, it would make a valuable addition to the pasture I'^'^'l. 



542 W. I. Myers 

In such a case the pasture J could be used for dry stock and the cows would 
not have to be driven daily down the road to pasture. 

Neither of these suggested rearrangements may ever be entirely realized. 
Changing conditions may make some other arrangement more desirable 
or a better plan may become possible. By planning for the future devel- 
opment of his farm, however, this farmer will be ready to take advantage 
of every opportunity for furthering his plan. 

The second farm 

The plan of another farm in central New York as it existed in 1915 is 
shown in figure 155. The soil is very heavy but most of the land is tillable. 
The topography is rolling. The principal crops grown are silage corn, oats, 
barley, wheat, hay, and alfalfa. A large dairy herd is kept, the pasture 
being supplemented by the feeding of silage and alfalfa in summer. This 
farm is made up of parts of four 50-acre farms, the history of which has 
already been given (page 398). As shown by the map, the farm was divided 
into sixteen crop fields, most of these being small in size and irregular in 
shape. In many of these fields the irregularity in shape was caused by 
the long open ditch which passed thru part of the farm. The ditch occu- 
pied more than an acre of land and necessitated more than two hundred 
short rows. The 50-acre tract on which the ditch was located was 
formerly a separate farm, with the farmstead located as shown, near the 
orchard R. The house was used by the present owner for a tenant house, 
altho it was very inconveniently located. 

More land was needed, and in the spring of 1918 the intervening farm 
of 54 acres was purchased. This farm had been unprofitable for years 
because it was too small and was poorly farmed. The land had received 
no manure and was badly run down. The present layout of the combined 
farms is shown in figure 156. Some changes have been made in the original 
farm since 1915. Most of the open ditch has been tiled and the land 
formerly occupied by the ditch has been cleared for crops. Some of 
the fields have been enlarged and combined. Some old apple trees have 
been cleared out of field N. The pasture field B has been plowed and is 
being temporarily cropped, and the former night pasture, field I on the 
1915 plan, has been added to field E. 

A possible rearrangement for this farm as now constituted is shown in 
figure 157. While far from ideal, this plan satisfies the requirements and 
yet considers the natural features of the farm. A five- or six-years rota- 



An Economic Study oi-' Fakm Layout 



5i3 



tion is followed, of silage corn, oats or barley, wheat, hay for two or 
three years. In addition a considerable area of alfalfa is grown. The 




Fig. 155. plan of a central new tork farm in 1915 

As is here shown, this farm was made up of three original 50-acre farms and part of a fourth farm 
Farm area, 162 acres 
Average size of farmed fields, 8.4 acres 
^ Average distance to farmed fields, 80 rods 



rearrangement provides for six main crop fields of from 24 to 29 acres each, 
and several fields for alfalfa. The fields are reasonably convenient to 
the buildings and are as regular in shape as the shape of the farm will 



544 



W. 1. Myers 



■;ll()\v. lit this ciise it is impossible to buy kind across the road to put 
the buikUngs in the center of the farm. 




Fig. 1-56. plan in 1918 of farm shown in figure 155 

In thp spring of 1918 the intervening farm of 54 acres was added to the farm shown in figure 155, in- 
orcasing the area to 216 acres. Some improvements in the former layout have already been made, the 
most important being the tiling of the open ditch between fields P and T 

Farm area, 21(1.5 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 9.2 acres 

Field A of the new j^lan would be made up of two ]\arts farmed together, 
A being the present field C, and A- being formed from parts of fields V 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



545 



and X. A would be made square by running the west side out to take 
in a little of the hill pasture. Field B of the rearrangement would be made 








Fig. 157. a pos.sible rearrangement of the farm shown in figure 156 

Five largo fields are provided for a five-years rotation, and three fields too rough to be cultivated are 
left for alfalfa. While far from ideal, this layout represents a great improvement over the former plan 
and yet meets the peculiar soil and topographical conditions of the farm 

Farm area, 216. .5 acres 

Average size of farmed fields, 19.3 acres 

up of the present fields D, H, and I, together with parts of fields F and Q. 
The new field C, made up of the two parts C- and C^ to be farmed together, 



546 W. I. Myers 

would include the present fields E and M. The new fields D and E would 
be rectangular fields 160 rods long, made up of the present fields 0, P, R, 
S, T, and W. The new field F would be made up of parts of the present 
fields U, Y, Z, and L. 

Fields D and I of the present plan have been nearly useless for years 
because they are too wet. Buckwheat lias been grown in field D in dry 
years, and some swale hay has Ijeen cut from field I. For jjractical pur- 
poses, however, they have l)een nonpi'oduetive land. In former years 
field D could not be drained alone because the only possible outlet was north 
thru field I and the owner of that field would not cooperate in ])utting a 
tile thru his own field. Since both fields are now owned by the same man, 
they can be easily drained by a few lines of tile. Most of this tile is already 
laid, and when the drain is completed the land will be the best on the farm. 

The irregular area of night pasture as planned would include a strip 
of heavy clay soil whicli cannot be profitably tilled. Fields G, H, and I 
of the new plan would l)e kept in alfalfa continuously. This land is too 
rough to l)e cultivated to advantage, l)ut it will gi-ow alfalfa. 

The tenant house at present located near the orchard H would be moved 
nearer to the main farmstead as shown. The worthless apple orchard R 
woukl be cleared off, and the remainder of the ditch in this field would be 
tiled so that this area of nearly 50 acres could be worked in two oblong 
fiekls. 

This rearrangement, while far from ideal as stated alcove, represents an 
improvement over former conditions. Combining these farms has made 
possible the drainage of two formerly useless fields and has added 20 acres 
of good lantl to the croj) area. The larger fields would result in greater 
efficiency of labor. No great expense is called for in the changes planned. 
They could be made in a few years, and the savings made possible should 
soon pay the cost of the changes. 

POSSIBLE REARRANGEMENT OF A WESTERN NEW YORK FARM 

The plan of a western New York farm as it existed in 1915 is shown in 
figure 158. The topography is level. The principal crops grown are 
beans, wheat, hay, alfalfa, corn, oats, and barley. Most of the land is 
tillable and therefore there is little permanent pasture. In addition to 
a herd of two or three cows, a few sheep are kept, and either lambs or steers 
are fatt(>ued in the winter to use up bean pods and other roughage. In 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



547 



1915 field K of the crop land was pastured, in addition to the small area 
of permanent pasture, field I. 

The layout of this farm was fairly good considering natural obstacles. 
There were ten crop fields in 1915, averaging 8.8 acres each in size and 
reasonably convenient to the buildings. The irregular shape of the fields 
was caused by a large open ditch which drained a considerable area of 
the land. This farm was made up of three parts, as its outline indicates. 




Fig. 158. plan of a western new york farm in 1915 

Farm area, 121.3 acres 

Average size of fanned fields, 8.7 aeres 

Average distani'e to farmed fields, (iO rods 

In 1916 the owner sold about 20 acres of his farm, and bought the run- 
down 90-acre farm adjoining his own on both sides of the road. The area 
sold comprised the fields L and M of the 1915 plan. These fields adjoined 
a neighbor's barn, and the owner was able to sell them to excellent advan- 
tage. They were bounded by a road on two sides, 7 per cent of thi>ir 
area thus being made untillable. The plan of the combined farms as they 
appeared in 1916 is shown in figure 159. The newly bought farm had been 
owned by an old man who had rented a considerable proportion of the 
land for several years. The farm was divided into eight rather small 



548 



W. I. Myers 




An Economic Study of Farm Layout 549 

crop fields, separated by wide hedgerows of brush and stone. The pres- 
ent owner has ah-eady begun the work of clearing up the farm and enlarg- 
ing the fields. In 1917 the swamp hole in field R was tiled and the hedge- 
row between fields P and R was cleared out. By making these changes, 
fields P, R, and S were combined into one field of 21 acres, winch was sowed 
to wheat in the fall. The fence between fields J and K has been taken 
out, and these fields will be farmed as one field of about 27 acres. Other 
changes will be made as rapidly as is possible without interfering with the 
farm work. 

A possible rearrangement of this farm is shown in figure 160. This 
plan would provide for seven crop fields — three fields of about 27 acres 
each for the major rotation, three fields of 8 acres each for a minor rota- 
tion, and one field for alfalfa. The major rotation would be the common 
one in this region, consisting of beans, wheat, clover. The minor rota- 
tion would be silage corn, oats, wheat. In this section of the State, where 
Httle hay is needed for feed and other crops are more profitable for sale, 
there is a tendency to shorten rotations by omitting hay. Clover is seeded 
with wheat, but, instead of being cut, is plowed under in the spring for 
corn or potatoes. The advantage of the cropping system outlined is 
that corn silage wanted for feed will be grown in fields near the barn. 

Field A in the proposed rearrangement would be formed by combining 
fields J and K of the present layout. Field B would be formed by com- 
bining fields L, M, N, and O. This would require clearing a considerable 
amount of brush and stone fence rows and would take some time. 
Possibly these stones might be disposed of for use on an improved road. 
Field C would be formed by combining the present fields P, R, and S, 
and taking in some of the tillable land in the adjoining pasture. The 
present crop field V, too wet and too remote for profitable farming, would 
be pastured or sold to the farmer near whose house it is located. The 
arrangement of fields D, E, and F is based on the assumption that the 
present open ditch can be tiled. The owner is planning to tile this ditch 
if it can be done without too great expense. Tlie imjjrovement in the 
shape of the fields, the elimination of the labor of keeping the ditch clear, 
and the saving of land, would be worth considerable efi"ort and expense. 
If the ditch cannot be economically tiled, the shape of the fields of the 
minor rotation would not be so good but the proposed rearrangement 
would not be affected otherwise. 



550 



W. I. Myers 




An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



551 



The woodlot Z contains no valuable timber, and occupies level tillable 
land which will eventually be added to the crop land. Already a strip 
along the north side which shaded the adjoining crop fields has been cut. 
Crop land m this region is worth from $100 to $125 an acre. 

By the changes suggested a good field arrangement would be secured 
in a few years. The changes already made have resulted in a great im- 
provement. By selling off two of the more distant fields and buying land 
nearer to the buildings, the layout of two farms was improved. The 
buildings of the present farm are as near the center of the crop area as is 
possible with farms of this shape. The saving of labor and land made 
possible by the further improvement in arrangement as suggested, would 
in a few years pay the cost of making the changes. 

LAND UTILIZATION 

A complete inventory of the land on the farms included in these studies 
is presented in table 32. The areas given under the different headings 
will not check in all cases with corresponding areas in previous pages. 

TABLE 32. Inventory of Land on Fifty-three New York Farms 





Total 
number 
of acres 


Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 


Per cent 
of total 

farm 

area 


Farmsteads: 


15.98 


0.30 


17 




Home orchards: 
Apple 


40.54 
2.90 


0.76 
0.05 


0.44 
03 


Mixed fruit 








43.44 


0.82 


0.47 




Other farmstead crops 


2.63 
12.69 

88.28 


0.05 
0.24 

1.67 


03 


Paddocks 


0.14 
0.96 


Land occupied by buildings, lawns, etc 


Total farmsteads 


163.02 


3.08 


1 77 






Tenant houses: 

Gardens 


13 28 

1 32 

19.64 


25 
0.02 
0.37 


14 


Orchards 


01 


Land occupied bv buildings 


21 






Total area tenant houses 


34.24 


0.65 


37 







552 



W. I. Myers 

TABLE 32 (continued) 





Total 
number 
of acres 


Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 


Per cent 
of total 

farm 

area 


Public roads not in crops 


144.75 


2.73 


1,57 






Woodland not pastured: 


151.89 
(U.33 


2,87 
1.21 


1 65 


Could be made tillable . 


70 






Not tillable: 

Suitable for pasture 


22 . 30 

22.58 


42 
0.43 


24 


Suitable only for woodland 


25 






Total not tillable 


44.88 


0,85 


0.49 






Total woodland not pastured 


2()1 . 10 


4,93 


2,84 






Permanent pasture other than paddocks: 
Cleared pasture: 
Tillable: 

Lanes 


17.46 

187.77 


0,33 
3,54 


19 


Other land 


2.04 








205.23 


3,87 


2 23 






Could be made tillable: 

Lanes . 


f).20 
840.31 


0.12 

15,85 


07 


Other land 


9 14 






Total cleared pasture which could be made 
• tillable 


846.51 


15 97 


9 21 






Not tillable 


542 37 
1,594.11 


10,23 


5.90 








30 08 


17.34 






Woodland pastured : 

Tillable if cleared 


395.79 
89.83 


7.47 
1,69 


4.31 


Could be made tillable 


0.98 






Not tillable: 

Suitable for pasture 


297.09 

98.78 


5,61 

1,86 


3.23 


Suitable only for woodland 


1 07 






Total woodland pastured not tillable 


395.87 


7,47 


4.31 






Total woodland pastured 


881,49 


16 63 


9.59 






Total permanent pasture 


2,475 60 


46 71 


26 93 







An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



553 



TABLE 32 (conUnued) 



Land in cropped fields (other than gardens and farm 
stead crops) : 
Land in cropped fields not producing a crop : 

Fence rows 

Swampy land 

Streams 

Open ditches 

Driveways in crop fields 

Rough or steep land 

Land shaded by woodlots 

Trees in fields 

Stone outcrops 

Barns in fields 

Stone piles 

Total land in cropped fields not producing a crop 

Land in cropped fields producing a crop: 
Crops other than fruit: 
Not rotated: 

Permanent meadow 

Rotated: 

General crops 

Truck crops 

Rotated pasture 

Total rotated 

Total crops other than fruit 

Fruit (other than home orchards) : 
Apples: 

Bearing 

Not bearing 

Total apples 

Peaches : 

Bearing 

Not bearing 

Total peaches 

Pears : 

Bearing 

Not bearing 

Total pears 



Total 
number 
of acres 



102.28 

30. ;m 

24.46 

12.06 

11.43 

11.27 

6.68 

5.25 

2.17 

2.15 

1.42 



210.11 



100.07 



4,413.87 

88.38 

645.85 



5,148.10 
5,254.17 



247.45 
150.35 



397.80 



37 . 53 

10.17 



53.70 



25 . 70 

7.82 



33.52 



Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 



1.93 
0.57 
0.40 
0.24 
0.22 
0.21 
0.13 
0.10 
0.04 
04 
0.03 



3.96 



2.00 



83 . 28 

1.07 

12.19 



97 . 13 



99 . 14 



4 07 

2.84 



7.51 



71 
31 



1.01 



0.48 
0.15 



0.03 



Per cent 
of total 

farm 

area 



1 11 
33 
27 
0.14 
0.12 
0.12 
0.07 
0.06 
0.02 
0.02 
0.02 



2 29 



1.15 



48.02 
0.96 
7.03 



2.69 
1.64 



4 33 



41 

0.18 



0.58 



0.28 
0.09 



0.36 



554 



W. I. Myers 

TABLE 32 (concluded) 



I;and in cropped fields (other than gardens and farm- 
stead crops) (continued) : 
Land in crojiped fields producing a crop (coniinued): 
Fruit (other than home orchards) (coniinued): 
Plums or prunes, bearing 



Cherries: 

Bearing 

Not bearing . 



Total cherries . 



Grapes: 

Bearing 

Not bearing. 



Total grapes 

Mixed fruits, bearing . 

Roadside apples: 

Bearing 

Not bearing 



Total roadside apples 

Total fruit otlier than home orchards . 
Total crops (including fruit) 



Total 
number 
of acres 



Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 



G.02 
0.90 



6.92 



22 . 2S 
7.02 



29 . 30 



3.44 



1.90 
2.12 



4.02 



Total land in cropped fields (other than gardens and 
farmstead crops) 



Other land: 

Lanes not included in |)asture or cropped fields 

Pasture land occupied by streams 

Land other than pasture or crop land occu i ci by 

streams 

Steep land not in cropped fields 

Brushlot (waste) 

I'nused farmsteads 

Village lots 



Total other land . 



Total area of farms . 



535.93 
5,790.10 



(•),000.21 



0.14 



0.11 
0.02 



0.13 



0.42 
0.13 



0.55 



0.0(3 



0.04 
0.04 



O.OS 



10.11 



109 . 25 



113.21 



15.07 
23.97 

2!). SO 

25.33 

11.3(1 

5.01 

4.00 



112.14 



9,191 03 



0.30 
0.45 

0.51 
0.4S 
0.21 
0.09 
0.08 



Per cent 

of total 

farm 

area 



0.08 



0.07 
0.01 

0.08 



0.24 
O.OS 

0.32 



0.04 



0.02 
0.02 






04 


5 


S3 


03.00 


65 


28 



0.17 
0.2') 

0.29 
0.2S 
0.12 
0.05 
O.Ol 



2.12 



173.42 



1.22 
100.00 



An Economic S'itjdy of Farm Layout 



555 



This is due to the fact that some classes of land have heretofore been 
included under two different classifications. For example, woodland pas- 
ture was included as woodland in table 27 (page 495) and also as pasture in 
table 25 (page 491). Home gardens and orchards were likewise included 
in the study of land in farmsteads and also in the study of land in crops. 
In table 32 there are no duplications. 

A comparison of the present use of land on these farms with that on 
the average New York farm is given in tal>le 33. Not only are the farms 



TABLE 33. 



Comparison of the Present I'se of Land on the Farms Studied, with 
That on the Average New York Farm 





Number of acres per farm 


Per cent of total farm 
area 




Average of 
185,051 
farms in 

1918 
census of 
New York 


Average of 
53 New 

York farms 
studied 


185,051 
New 
York 
farms 


53 New 
York 
farms 

studied 


Crops other than fruit 


45.61 
3.22 


94.17 
10.11 


44.21 
3.12 


54 30 


Fruit 


5 83 






All crops. . 


48.83 


104.28 


47.33 


60 13 






Tillable pasture 

Other cleared pasture 


12.34 
12.96 


8.84 
26.21 


11 96 
12.56 


5.10 
15 11 






Total cleared pasture 


25.30 


35.05 


24.52 


20 21 






\^ oods pastured 


11.55 


16.63 


11.20 


9 59 






Total pasture 


36.86 


51.68 


35.73 


'^9 80 






^Voods not pastured 


10.81 
3.83 

2.84 


4.93 
12.53 


10 48 
3 71 
2.75 


2 84 


Farmsteads, roads, and lanes 


7 23 


Use not reported 










Total farm area 


103.17 


173.42 


100,00 


100 00 







included in these studies nuich larger than the average, but they liaA-e a 
larger proportion of their land in crops and a smaller proportion in pasture 
than do the farms reporting in tiie last census of New Yoik agriculture.'- 

3 Census of the agricultural resourcps of New York. Census of 1017 taken by order of the New York 
State Food Supply Commission. Census of 1918 taken by order of the New Yoik State F'oocl Commi-s- 
sion. 1919. 



r)r)G 



W. I. Myers 



Sixty per cent of the area of those farms was in crops, as compared 
with 47 per cent for the State. About 30 per cent of the area of these 
farms was in pasture, as compared with nearly 36 per cent for the State. 
The propoi-tion of the land in woods not pastured was much lower on the 
farms included in these studies, 2.84 per cent, as compared with 10.48 per 
cent f(^r all farms reporting in the census. The proportion of the area of 
the farms here considered in farmsteads, lanes, roads, fence rows, and other 
olDstructions, is approximately equal to the sum of the percentage of land 
so classified and of land with use not reported in the census. 

The relation of size of farms to the proportion of land producing 
crops is shown in table 34: 



TABLE 34. Relation of Size of Farms to Proportion of Land Producing Crops 





Size of farms (acres) 




Less than 
100 


100 1() 
174.9 


175 or 
more 


All 
farms 




Per cent of tt 


)tal farm area 


Land producinu; a crop: 
Crop.s otiier than fruit: 
Home gardens . 


2S 
09 

07 

1 4S 
.53.57 


27 
02 
10 
0.50 
00.53 


0.11 
02 

0.18 

1.30 

54.41 


0.17 


Other farmstead crops 

Tenant gardens 


03 
0.14 


Permanent meadows 


1.15 


Rotated crops 


50.01 


Total crops other than fruit 


55.49 


01.47 


50.08 


.57.50 


Fruit: 

Home orchards 


0.50 


0..57 
""7;02 


43 
0.02 
3.10 


47 


Tenant orchards 


01 


Other fruit 


18 38 


5. S3 






Total fruit 


18.88 


. 7.59 


3.55 


31 






Total cultivated crops 


74 37 


09.00 


59 03 


03.81 


Permaneat pasture : 

Cleared pasture 


9 .57 
5.. 35 


10.82 
3.78 


19.17 
12.95 


17 48 


Woodland pasture 


9 59 






Total permanent pasture 


14 92 


20.00 


.32.12 


27.07 






Woodland not pastured 


2 35 


2 13 


3.25 


2.84 






Total land producing a crop 


91.C>4 


91.79 


95.00 


93.72 







An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



557 



TABLE 34 (concluded) 





Size of farms (acres) 




Less than 
100 


100 to 
174.9 


175 or 
more 


All 

farms 




Per cent of total farm area 


Land not producing a crop: 

Main farmstead occupied by buildings .... 
Land occupied by tenant liouses 


1.99 
0.22 
1.48 


1.11 
0.11 
1.77 


0.71 
0.26 
1.50 


96 
21 


Public roads not in crops 


1.57 


Land in cropped fields occupied by: 
Fence rows 


1.48 
52 
0.36 
0.12 
0.32 
0.2G 
0.11 
0.01 
0.12 
0.01 
0.01 


1.14 
59 
24 
0.25 
0.15 
24 
O.OG 
01 
01 
0.03 
0.02 


1.04 
0.19 
26 
09 
08 
05 
07 
0.08 

'" 02 
0.02 


1 11 


Swampy spots 


33 




27 


Open ditches 


0.14 


Driveways 


12 


Rough or steep land 


12 


Land shaded by woods 


0.07 


Trees in fields . . . 


06 


Stone outcrops 


02 


Barns in fields 


02 


Stone piles 


0.02 






Total land in cropped fields not pro- 
ducing a crop 


3.32 


2.74 


1.90 


2.29 






Lanes not included in pasture or croppecl- 
fields 


0.19 
0.01 

1.01 


0.22 

0.58 

31 
0.94 
0.45 


0.15 
0.16 

16 
02 

""o'07 
0.07 


0.17 


Pasture land occupied by streams 

Land other than pasture or crop land 
occupied by streams 


0.26 
0.29 




0.28 






0.12 




0.13 


05 


Village lots 


0.04 


Total land not producing a crop 


8.35 


8.23 


5.00 


6.24 



Nearly 94 per cent of the land in these farms was producing some kind 
of a crop, either field crop, garden, orchard, pasture, or woods. While 
the value of these different crops varies widely, they are all contributing 
directly, in some measure, to the farm income. The remainder of the 
land in these farms, 6.24 per cent, was not producing a crop. Most of 
this land was not wasted because it was necessary to the proper organi- 
zation of the business, but it contributed nothing directly to the farm 



558 



W. I. Myers 



income. The greater proportion of the land not producing a crop was 
occupied by obstructions in crop fields, farmsteads, pubHc highways, and 
tenant houses. 

A study of these farms indicates that the area of land suitable for crop- 
ping can be consider;ibly increased if conditions warrant. Altho most of 
the good agricultural land in America is now in farms, the productivity 
of farms can l)e greatly increased by a more intensive utilization of land. 
A proper utilization of land infers not only that as large a proportion of 
the land as possil)lc shall be productive, but that the land shall be devoted 
to tlie pin'})Ose which pays best. Farmers are not now making the maxi- 
mum utilization of their land because it is not profitable to do so. 

Some ways of increasing the crop area on the farms studied are pointed 
out in table 35: 



TABLE 35. Possible Increases in the Crop Area of Fifty-three New York Farms 





Total 
number 
of acres 


Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 


Per cent 

of total 

farm 

area 


Public roads on which roadsides could be tilled 


30.00 


0.57 


0.33 


Woodland not pastured: 

Tillable if cleared 


151.89 
48.94 

15. 39 


2.87 
0.92 

0.29 


1.65 


Could be made tillable, after clearing, by drainage. . . . 

Could be made tillable, after clearing, by removing 

stones 


0.53 
0.17 


Total woodland not pastured that could be tilled 


216.22 


4.08 


2.35 


W aodland pastured : 

Tillable if cleared 

Could be made tillable, after clearing, by drainage. . . . 


395.79 
89.83 


7.47 
1.69 


4.31 
0.98 


Total woodland pastured that could be tilled 


485.62 


9.16 


5.28 


Cleared pasture other than lanes and paddocks : 

Tillable 


187.32 
.3.53.19 
292.92 

61.30 

132.90 


3.53 
6.66 
5.53 

1.16 

2.51 


2 •04 


Could be made tillable by drainage 

Could be made tillable by clearing away stones. . . . 
Could be made tillable by clearing away stones and 
brush 


3.84 
3.19 

67 


Could be made tillable by clearing away stones and 
by drainage 


1.45 


Total cleared pasture, other than lanes and paddocks, 
that could be tilled 


1,027.63 


19.39 


11.18 







An Economic Study of Farm Layout 



559 



TABLE 35 (concluded) 



Fenced driveways not used for stock, which could be 
tilled 

Crop land occupied bj' obstructions: 

Fence rows 

Open ditches 

Streams 

Swampy spots 

Stone piles 

Trees in fieldj 

Land shaded by woodlots 

Rough land 

Driveways in crop fields 

Barns in crop fields 

Total crop land occupied by obstructions, which 
could be tilled 

Other land that could be tilled : 

Brushlot 

LTnused farmsteads 

Total other land that could be tilled 

Total land that could be added to crop area 

Present area of all crops 

Possible future area of all crops 

Total area of farms 



Total 
number 
of acres 



.00 



35.28 
8.35 
9.85 

31.00 
L08 
5.25 
6.68 
2.26 
2.15 
75 



102.65 



11.36 
5.01 



16.37 



1,886.49 



5,866.75 
7,753.24 



Number 

of acres 

per 

farm 



0.15 



0.67 
0.16 
0.19 
0.5S 
02 
10 
0.13 
0.04 
04 
01 



1.94 



21 
0.09 



0.31 



35.59 



110.69 
146.29 



Per cent 
of total 

farm 

area 



0.09 



0.38 
09 
11 
34 
01 
06 
07 
02 
02 
0.01 



1.12 



0.12 
0.05 



0.18 



20.53 



63.83 
84.36 



9,191.06 



173.42 



100.00 



By rearranging these farms so as to reclaim as much as possible of the 
land that is now unproductive, about 157 acres could be added to their 
crop area. This would be an increase of 3 acres of crop land to each farm, 
or an increase of 2.7 per cent in the crop area. This increase would come 
out of land which is now unproductive because it is occupied by unneces- 
sary fences, swampy spots, and other obstructions, and would not decrease 
either pasture or woodland. Probably the land gained would seldom 
pay for the expense of rearrangement, but the saving of labor is usually 
more important than the land gained. Where unnecessary stone fences 



560 W. I. Myers 

can be used for improving roads, a threefold saving results: the removal 
of the stones permits the enlarging of fields and thereby saves labor in 
growing crops, the improvement of the roads saves labor in marketing 
the crops, and some land is gained for crop production. 

If, in addition to the foregoing changes, all woodland suitable for crop 
production or for pasture were cleared, about 700 acres could be added to 
the crop land of these farms without decreasing the effective area of per- 
manent pasture. This would mean an increase of 13.2 acres of crop land 
to each farm, or an increase of 11.9 per cent of the crop area, but it would 
decrease the farm wood and lumber supply about 90 per cent. The area 
of woodland to each farm would be reduced from 21.5 acres to 2.3 acres. 
In addition to this woodland which is good for no other purpose, some 
trees might be grown in the pastures. 

If as much as possible of the unproductive land on these farms were 
reclaimed, if all woodland suitable for other purposes were cleared, and 
if all land suited to ci-op production were used for that purpose, the area 
of crop land could be increased about 1886 acres. This would be an in- 
crease of 35.6 acres to each farm, or an increase of about one-third in 
the crop area at the expense of the area of woodland and pasture. As 
in the preceding case, the area of woodland to each farm would be reduced 
from 21.5 acres to 2.3 acres, this woodland being suitable for no other 
purpose. This rearrangement would also reduce by one-half the effective 
area of permanent pasture, leaving but 17 acres of cleared permanent 
pasture to each farm. The changes would reduce the farm supply of 
wood and lumber, and, vniless some change were made in the system of 
farming, woidd necessitate a reduction in the amount of livestock 
kept. 

Increasing the crop area will mean, not cheaper food, but higher- 
priced food, because low prices would not justify the expense involved 
in making these changes. It is better to have more food, even at a higher 
price, than not to have food when it is needed. Clearing land for culti- 
vation is a long and laborious process. After the trees are cut, it takes 
about ten to twenty years for the stumps to rot so that the land can be 
cleared cheaply. In most cases it is better to pastiu-e the land while the 
stumps are rotting than to clear at once. While, in a general way, the 
land adapted to crop production will be added to the crop area when 
conditions justify the addition, the response to these conditions is neces- 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 561 

sarily slow. At the present time some woodland occupying valuable 
tillable land is being cut over and will eventually be added to the crop 
area. Probably there are more farmers who own woodland occupying 
tillable land too valuable for forestry purposes, who should be thinking 
about making similar changes. 

But land must have another advantage besides being tillable before it 
will be cropped. It must be near enough to its owner so that it can be 
cropped economically. Much land now in tillable pasture would be 
cropjied if it were not too remote from its present owner. Such land is 
usually near enough to some one to be cropped to advantage. Readjust- 
ments in ownership which would permit each farmer to farm the land 
most convenient to his buildings would be desirable from a public as well 
as from a private point of view. In most cases such readjustments can 
now be made only with difficulty. 

SUMMARY 

This memoir reports the results of a study of the layouts of fifty-three 
New York farms, the object being to trace the development of farm 
layouts, to study the principles of efficient farm field arrangements, and 
to study the utilization of land on these typical farms with particular 
reference to the possibilities of increasing the area of crop land to meet 
the needs of an increasing population. 

Most of the farm land of New York was originally covered with forests. 
A large part of this land was divided into farms and cleared for farming 
when hand-labor methods of agriculture prevailed. Sul)sequent changes 
in economic conditions and in methods of agricultural production, and their 
consequent effect on farms and farming, have given rise to most of the 
present problems of farm layout. Changes in farm layout have not kept 
pace with changing agricultural conditions, and as a result most farms 
now need rearranghig. Plans of farms here shown illustrate the historical 
development of the laj^out of typical New York farms. 

Large crop fields give greater economy of labor, fencing, and land. 
Hence farmed fields should be as large as the size of farm, the type of 
farming, the length of rotation, and physical factors, will permit. 

For crop fields of ordinary size the oblong shape gives the most efficient 
use of labor, while the square shape is the most economical of fencing and 
of land. Saving labor is usually more important than saving land and 



562 W. I. Myers , 

fencing, and therefore oblong shapes are most desirable for crop fields of 
moderate size. Very large crop fields may be square to save fencing, and 
yet be long enough to permit the efficient use of labor. 

The distance from farmstead to fields should be made as short as 
possible in order to save useless travel. With farms of moderate size 
the farmstead should be located- as near the center of the farm as it can 
l)e placed and still be on the highway. The ideal arrangement is to have 
half of the land on each side of the highway, with the buildings in the 
center of the farm. 

Crop fields should be free from obstructions, such as swampy spots, 
open ditches, streams, trees, stone piles, and unnecessary fences. 

The question of fencing farms suitably and economically is becoming 
increasingly important. Data are herein presented showing the amount 
of each Idnd of fencing foimd on these farms, the adaptation of fencing 
practice to local conditions in different parts of the State, the distribution 
of fence on farms, the proportion of farm division lines that are fenced, 
the relation of size of farm to economy of fencing, the amount of land 
occupied by fences, the proportion of the farm area inclosed by fence, 
and the farm cost of fence maintenance. 

Farm lanes and driveways should be carefully planned for efficiency 
of labor, fencing, and land. The area of land utilized in lanes on the 
farms studied is given, as well as the average width of lanes with different 
amounts of stock. 

The proper utihzation of farm land is also important. Data are 
presented showing the amount of land in cropped fields occupied by 
fences, swampy spots, streams, and other obstructions, and by different 
classes of crops, on the farms studied, the relation of size of farms to 
the proportion of the area of cropped fields occupied by obstructions, 
the classification of pasture land, the relation of size of pastures to 
economy of fencing, the cUssification of woodland, and the present use 
of land in highways and farmsteads. 

Many farm plans are given illustrating desirable and undesiral^le 
features of farm layouts. These plans emphasize the fact that most 
farms need rearranging to adapt them to present conditions. 

In addition to the preceding factors, physical features such as soil, 
drainage, and topography should also be considered in planning a farm 
layout. 



An Economic Study of Farm Layout 5G3 

The logical procedure in planning the rearrangement of a farm is: 

1. To study carefully the farm and the local conditions. 

2. To decide on the cropping plan or rotation. 

3. To make a plan for the long-time development of the farm which will 
provide as good a layout for the conditions as the natural limitations 
permit. 

4. To carry out plans slowly, doing the work at odd times; to do the 
most important things first; not to let this work interfere with work on 
crop production. 

Plans are included in the bulletin illustrating different stages in the 
actual rearrangements of some New York farms as made by owners, 
and possible rearrangements of other farms which have been started 
but are not yet completed. These plans ai-e accompanied by descriptions 
of the farms, of local conditions, and of the procedure followed in carrying 
out the plans for rearrangement. 

A complete inventory of the land on these farms is given, showing the 
present use of all land. Data are presented comparing the use of land 
on these farms with that on the average New York fai-m, and also showing 
possible increases in the crop area of the farms studied by reclaiming land 
now unproductive and by utilizing for crops land which is now occupied 
by pasture or woods but which would be suitable for ci'op production. 
If the farms studied may be considered as typical, substantial increases 
can be made in the crop area of New York farms to meet the prospective 
needs of an increasing population. 



Memoir 31, .4 Siudi/ of Selections for the Si-r, Shape, and Color of Hens' Eggs, the third preceding 
number in this series of pubhcations, waa mailed on August 21, 1920. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



001 437 814 5 • 




